Responding to Individuals
Involved in Bullying
Dr. Susan Swearer
June 8, 2015
Educator and School
Mental Health
Provider Conference
BU School of
Education
Boston, MA
• Tweet comments and questions!
@DrSueSwearer
@Bully_Research
@Empowerment_UNL
Keynote based in part on:
 Studying bullying since 1998
 Co-edited a special issue:
“Bullying: At School and Online” at
(www.education.com)
 Developed a cognitive-behavioral
intervention for bullying behaviors
 Being a supervising psychologist in the child and
adolescent therapy clinic at UNL since 1999
 Being a parent of two daughters
 Chair of the Research Advisory Board for the Born
This Way Foundation
(www.bornthiswayfoundation.org)
Available from: www.amazon.com
Bullying Prevention: Using Participatory
Action Research to Reduce Bullying
• Empowerment Initiative (http://empowerment.unl.edu)
• Working with schools and school districts since 1999.
• A partnership between individual schools and/or
districts and the University of Nebraska – Lincoln
School Psychology Program.
• Using data to make decisions about effective bullying
prevention and intervention strategies.
• Researchers provide yearly feedback to participating
schools.
• Elementary, Middle, High Schools and higher
education.
• University researchers work in tandem with school
personnel, students, and parents.
The Empowerment Initiative
(http://empowerment.unl.edu)
• The Empowerment Initiative supports
translational research designed to foster positive,
accepting communities free from bullying and
other negative behaviors.
• Studies conducted through the Empowerment
Initiative focus on identifying and addressing the
complex personal, social and cultural factors
underlying such behaviors and advance practical
solutions to promote healthy relationships within
families, schools and communities.
Definition of Bullying (Swearer, 2001):
• Bullying happens when someone hurts or scares
another person on purpose and the person being
bullied has a hard time defending himself or herself.
Usually, bullying happens over and over.
 Punching, shoving and other acts that hurt people
physically
 Spreading bad rumors about people
 Keeping certain people out of a “group”
 Teasing people in a mean way
 Getting certain people to “gang up” on others
Bully/Victim Continuum*
• Bully Perpetrator– reports bullying others
• Victim/Target – reports being bullied by others
• Bully-Victim – reports bullying others & being
bullied
• Bystander – reports observing others being bullied
• No Status/Not involved – does not report any
involvement with bullying
*IMPORTANT: This is a dynamic continuum; kids move
between these roles over time.
We need to ask the question:
“What are the conditions
that allow bullying
behaviors to occur?”
A Social-Ecological Model of Bullying
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979;Orpinas & Horne; 2006; Swearer & Espelage,
2004)
Society/Culture Community
School/
Peers
Family
Child
Therapeutic Interventions
• Understand the connection between
bullying and mental health issues
• Develop a strong community referral
system
• Utilize school counselors and school
psychologists
• Assess and treat underlying
psychopathology linked to bullying and
victimization
Effective Treatment for Depression and
Anxiety in Youth*
• ACTION: A Workbook for Overcoming
Depression (Stark et al, 1996)
• Keeping Your Cool: The Anger Management
Workbook (Nelson & Finch, 1996)
• Coping Cat (Kendall, Kane, Howard, &
Siqueland, 1990)
• Cognitive-Behavioral Group Treatment for
Adolescents with Social Anxiety (Albano,
Marten, Holt, Heimberg, & Barlow, 1995)
• Referrals to
counselors/psychologists/psychiatrists.
*www.workbookpublishing.com
Premise behind the Target Bullying
Intervention
• The social-cognitive perceptions of all
participants in bullying interactions are as
critical as are the aggressive behaviors,
because the perceptions and cognitions of
participants serve to underlie, perpetuate,
and escalate bullying interactions (Doll & Swearer,
2005; Swearer & Cary, 2003).
• We must intervene at the cognitive and
behavioral levels in order to prevent and alter
bullying behaviors.
Interventions for Students
who Bully Others
• It is important to determine whether
intervention modules are best delivered in a
group format or individually.
• Typically, anti-bullying programs deliver
interventions in a group format.
• However, research has suggested that
homogenous group interventions are not
helpful for aggressive youth and in fact, may
be damaging (Dishion, McCord, & Poulin, 1999).
A True Story
(Newsweek, April 12, 2004):
• “People were climbing over
seats and started fighting about
stupid stuff.”
--Woodlawn High School freshman Melissa Parks,
on the arrests of 11 students and two adults after
a fight broke out in the Maryland school’s angermanagement assembly.
Target Bullying Intervention
• Background: Partnership with a middle school principal;
instead of ISS. Train-the trainers model.
• We live in a punishment-oriented society. However,
research shows that zero tolerance is ineffective at
curbing aggression and bullying.
• Research shows that children under age 12 react
strongly to positive feedback and scarcely respond at all
to negative feedback.
•
Anna C. K. van Duijvenvoorde, Kiki Zanolie, Serge A. R. B. Rombouts,
Maartje E. J. Raijmakers, and Eveline A. Crone. Evaluating the Negative
or Valuing the Positive? Neural Mechanisms Supporting FeedbackBased Learning across Development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 17
September 2008.
Target Bullying Intervention
(Swearer, 2005)
• Originally, an alternative to in-school
suspension.
• Has been implemented in elementary, middle,
and high schools.
• Parents choose the consequence for bullying
behavior for their child: (1) typical in-school
suspension or (2) the bullying intervention
program.
• Parental consent and student assent obtained.
• Three hour intervention based on a therapueutic
assessment approach (Finn, 1998).
Target Bullying Intervention
(Swearer, 2005)
•
Three components:
(1) ASSESSMENT
(2) PSYCHOEDUCATION/CBT – PowerPoint, Quiz,
BullyBusters Worksheets, Bullying Video, Roleplaying; Cognitive Restructuring
(3) FEEDBACK – Parent, School, Student
•
Parental/Teacher perceptions of bullying and
session assessed (Bully Survey-Parent
Version; Treatment Evaluation Inventory) in
addition to:
Cognitive-Behavioral
Assessment
• Self-Report Questionnaires (approx. 1 hour)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
The Bully Survey-Youth (Swearer, 2001)
Children’s Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 2001)
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children (March, 1997)
How I Think Questionnaire (Barriga et al., 2001)
Thoughts about School (Song & Swearer, 2001)
Harter Self-Concept Scale (Harter, 1985)
Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980)
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (Essau, Sasagawa,
& Frick, 2006)
– Bullying Intervention Rating Profile (Witt & Elliot, 1985).
Psychoeducation/Therapy
• 30 minute PowerPoint Presentation.
• Quiz over presentation.
• PSYCHOEDUCATION: Worksheet Activities (from
Bully Busters, Newman, Horne, & Bartolomucci,
2000) 1 hr. Some that we use in the T-BIP:
–
–
–
–
–
–
Stop Rewind, Play it Again
Jump into my Shoes
Lend a Hand
Are you up to the Challenge?
Vacation Time
Relaxation Time
• Watch and discuss Bullying Video (“Bully Dance” or
“Stories of Us”).
• Brief cognitive-behavioral therapy based on
presenting concerns
Feedback Session
• EVALUATION:
• Write Bullying Intervention treatment report (3-5
pages)
• Recommendations based on data (data-based
decision-making!)
• Share with school and parents during a face-to-face
solution-oriented meeting
• FOLLOW-UP (End-of-year): Track office referral data
for bullying incidents for students who participate in
the intervention and compare with students who did
not participate in the intervention. However…..
Participant Feedback
•
Students referred to the Bullying Intervention Program
reported:
“You’re going to see a whole new me from now on.”
“What I’ve been doing probably made the other girl feel really bad
and lonely.”
“I’m not a bully, they accuse me of things just to bring me down
because I’m at the top of the food chain.”
•
In a recent parent feedback session:
“I am so grateful for the bullying intervention program. This program
helped my child and wasn’t focused on punishment.
“I’m going to share this report with my daughter’s therapist!”
•
The school staff reported:
“This has opened her eyes to what she’s been doing and she’s
become more aware of her actions.”
When to Use a Direct Therapeutic
Intervention?
• In a typical school building, 10% of
students or less will bully others.
• Directly intervene with these 10%!
• Direct interventions can be used in
conjunction with a whole-school
approaches that have empirical support
• Use when a student has received
consistent disciplinary referrals for bullying
behaviors.
T-BIP referral, “Kara” (12/3/14)
•
•
•
•
•
12 years old
Female
Caucasian
7th grade
Only child, lives with biological
parents
Reasons for Referral
•
•
•
•
Verbal and physical bullying
Saying mean things to other girls
Throwing snowballs at a classmate
Previous consequences for bullying
–In-school Suspension
–Removal from classes
Children’s Depression Inventory
• Total raw scores of 19 (T-Score=60) or
greater indicate the potential for depression.
• T-Scores:
– Total CDI: 49
– Anhedonia: 41
– Negative Self-esteem: 46
– Interpersonal problems: 68*
– Negative mood: 45
– Ineffectiveness: 46
Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for
Children
• T-Scores at or greater than 65 indicate levels
of clinical anxiety
• T-Scores:
– Total Anxiety: 43
– Physical symptoms: 45
– Social anxiety: 45
– Harm avoidance: 39
– Separation/panic: 52
How I Think Questionnaire
• Clinical range
– Assuming the worst: 92%
– Lying: 90%
– Physical aggression: 84%
• Borderline clinical range
– Overall HITscore: 76%
– Blaming Others: 80%
– Minimizing/Mislabeling: 76%
– Oppositional Defiance: 82%
• Nonclinical range
– Self-centered: 60%
– Stealing: 56%
Interpersonal Reactivity Index
•
•
•
•
•
28 items that assess empathy
Perspective-taking: 11 (slightly below the norm)
Empathic concern: 16 (slightly below the norm)
Personal distress: 14 (norm for her age)
Fantasy scale: 11 (slightly below the norm)
• Kara shared that when her friends are threatened,
she will protect her group, regardless of the
consequences
Inventory of Callous-Unemotional
Traits
• 24-item scale that assess callous and unemotional
traits, common among youth dx with ODD and CD
• Callousness subscale: 9 (moderate)
• Uncaring subscale: 15 (high)
• Total score: 33 (high)
• Kara shared that she does not care about hurting
others who have hurt her or her friends
Thoughts About School
• Kara endorsed the following items:
– Students who are bullied do not tell teachers or
other school staff about it
– I would be friends with someone who bullies
– Bullying is no big deal
– Most people who get bullied “ask for it”
Kara stated that she wouldn’t tell teachers about
bullying because she didn’t want to be seen as a
“snitch.”
Self-Perception Profile for Children
• A score of 1 indicates low perceived competence, a
score of 2.5 indicates medium perceived
competence, and a score of 4 reflects high perceived
competence.
–
–
–
–
–
–
Global self-worth: 3.00
Athletic competence: 3.83
Physical appearance: 3.83
Behavioral conduct: 1.83
Scholastic competence: 2.83
Social acceptance: 3.67
Bully Survey-Student
• Endorsed being a bystander and bully
perpetrator
• Reported bullying:
– One or more times per week
– Girls who are not popular
– Name-calling; throwing snowballs
– Bullying didn’t make her feel bad or
sad
– Need to protect her peer group
Bullying Intervention Rating Profile
• Scores range from 7-35, with
higher scores indicating more
positive perceptions
• Kara’s score: 35
–Highest possible score
–Felt that the T-BIP was helpful
Recommendations
• Positive self-talk and emotion
regulations strategies
• Effective problem-solving skills
• Home-school note
• Teaching empathy (www.tolerance.org)
• Reinforce Kara for reporting bullying to
a designate school staff member
• Art classes at a local arts center
• Encourage developing other friends
T-BIP Demographics
• Total n=136
• Female =54, male = 82
• Age: 7 years old: n=1; 8 yr: n=5, 9yr: n=5; 10 yr: n=9;
11 yr: n=25; 12yr: n=66; 13 yr: n=25; 14 yr:n=7; 15 yr:
n=4.
• Grade level: two 2nd graders, five 3rd graders, six 4th
graders, nine 5th graders; 37 6th graders, 54 7th
graders, 19 8th graders, three 9th graders, one 10th
grader
• Ethnicity: 76 Caucasian, 16 African-American, 14
Latino/Hispanic, 8 Native-American, 19 Mixed
minority, 3 other
Bully/Victim Status
• Have you been bullied this school year?
– 83 students endorsed ‘yes’
• Have you seen another student bullied this school year?
– 102 students endorsed ‘yes’
• Have you bullied another student this school year?
– 111 students endorsed ‘yes’
• Based on student’s self report:
– Bullies: 43 students
– Victims: 14 students
– Bully-victims: 68 students
– Bystanders: 3 students
– Uninvolved: 6 students
– Last two groups were combined in the analysis
T-BIP Results (136 students)
• Results suggest that the T-BIP is effective in reducing
office referrals for students who participated.
• Paired sample t-test showed that the number of office
referrals decreased significantly after the T-BIP
intervention, from 2.75 (SD=3.29) to 2.06 (SD=2.96),
t(125)= 2.10, p <.05.
• Comparing office referral four weeks before T-BIP
and four weeks after T-BIP, Paired sample t-test also
showed a significant decrease, from 1.01 (SD=1.64)
to 0.47 (SD=0.89), t(125)= 3.55, p <.001.
Group Differences: Anxiety
• After controlling for age, gender, and school, ANOVA results
showed significant bully/victim group differences for:
– Anxiety total score, F(3, 127)= 4.81, p = .003. Specifically,
bully-victims scored significantly higher than bullies, mean
difference = -9.32, p < .05.
– Anxiety-- physical symptoms, F(3,127) = 3.99, p < .01.
Specifically, victims scored significantly higher than
bystanders/not involved, mean difference = 7.92, p <.05;
bully-victims also scored slightly higher than bystanders,
mean difference = 5.80, p = .07.
– Social anxiety, F(3,127) = 5.86, p < .001. Specifically, bullyvictims scored significantly higher than bullies, mean
difference = 4.47, p = .002.
– Anxiety index, F (3,127) = 7.48, p < .001. Specifically,
victims and bully-victims scored significantly higher than
bullies, mean difference = 4.18, 3.56, p <.05, p < .001,
respectively.
Group Differences: Anxiety
MASC_t
Bully Mean
SD
Victim Mean
SD
MASC_PS
MASC_HA
MASC_SA
MASC_Sep
MASC_
Index
34.93
7.07
13.26
8.05
6.56
9.60
16.25
6.15
5.63
5.17
4.33
4.19
44.71
10.79
15.64
10.93
7.36
13.14
21.37
7.23
5.17
7.44
5.40
5.22
44.28
9.35
15.24
12.53
7.16
13.01
17.51
6.86
4.64
6.94
4.61
4.68
29.67
3.33
16.00
6.78
3.56
9.33
9.17
3.32
2.83
4.84
3.13
2.74
Bully-victim
Mean
SD
Bystander
Mean
SD
Group Differences: Cognitive
Distortions
• After controlling for age, gender, and school, ANOVA
results showed significant bully/victim group
differences for two types of self-serving cognitive
distortions:
– Self-centered, F(3, 122)= 2.71, p < .05.
Specifically, bullies scored significantly higher than
victims, mean difference = 0.69, p < .05.
– Minimizing/Mislabeling, F(3,122) = 3.87, p = .01.
Specifically, bullies scored significantly higher than
victims, mean difference = 0.83, p =.01.
Group Differences: Cognitive
Distortions
Bully Mean
SD
Victim Mean
SD
Bully-victim
Mean
SD
Bystander
Mean
SD
Self-centered
2.69
0.98
2.01
0.75
Minimizing/Misla Assuming the
Blaming Others
beling
Worst
2.90
2.74
2.85
0.93
0.97
0.84
2.61
1.94
2.62
0.82
0.82
0.72
2.38
2.74
2.37
2.65
0.75
0.84
0.81
0.73
2.21
2.49
2.14
2.65
0.65
0.56
0.69
0.83
Group Differences: Self-Concept
• After controlling for age, gender, and school, ANOVA
results showed significant bully/victim group differences
for self concept:
– Social acceptance, F(3, 122)= 7.38, p < .001.
Specifically, bullies scored significantly higher than
victims and bully-victims, mean difference = 0.57,
0.56, p < .05, <001, respectively.
– Athletic competence, F(3,122) = 2.96, p < .05.
Specifically, bystander/not involved scored
significantly higher than bully-victims, mean
difference = 0.70, p <.05.
– Physical appearance, F(3,122) = 4.62, p < .01.
Specifically, bullies scored significantly higher than
bully-victims, mean difference = 0.49, p <.01.
Group Differences: Self-Concept
Bully Mean
SD
Victim
Mean
SD
scholastic
2.79
0.55
social
3.30
0.47
athletic
2.95
0.61
physical
behavioral
selfworth
3.07
2.40
3.14
0.52
0.56
0.52
2.80
2.77
2.81
3.04
2.85
3.17
0.60
0.76
0.76
0.73
0.78
0.38
2.73
2.75
2.75
2.62
2.38
2.89
0.72
0.74
0.77
0.79
0.57
0.68
2.96
3.35
3.46
3.08
2.48
3.27
0.38
0.34
0.50
0.58
0.47
0.43
Bully-victim
Mean
SD
Bystander
Mean
SD
Gender Differences
• Boys scored significantly higher than girls on
minimizing the problem (a cognitive
distortion), t= -2.40, p <.05, athletic
competence, t = -3.57, p <.001.
• Girls scored significantly higher than boys on
anxiety total score, t.3.17, p<.01, social
anxiety, t= 3.27, p <.001, MASC index score,
t= 2.01, p <.05.
• Girls scored slightly higher than boys on
depression total score, t= 1.89, p = .06
Gender Differences in Depression
and Anxiety
Mean
MASC_ total**
Female
Male
MASC_ Social anxiety Female
***
Male
MASC_ Separation
Female
anxiety***
Male
MASC_Index*
Female
Male
CDI_total +
Female
Male
SD
46.17
36.60
12.72
9.04
8.35
5.71
12.74
11.09
12.20
9.62
17.81
16.84
6.99
6.03
4.49
4.40
4.95
4.54
8.67
6.28
Gender Differences in Self Concept
and Cognitive Distortions
Mean
Athletic competence*** Female
Male
Minimizing the problem * Female
Male
SD
2.60
0.71
3.04
0.69
2.18
0.84
2.55
0.89
Preliminary Group Analysis: CallousUnemotional Traits (ICU)
• We only collected data on ICU from a small group of
students , n = 27, 14 bullies, 1 victim, 10 bullyvictims, and 2 not-involved. So we only compared
bullies and bully-victims on ICU and empathy
• After controlling for gender, age, and school, ANOVA
showed that bully-victims (mean = 35.86, SD=7.56)
reported higher total ICU score than bullies (mean =
32, SD=4.08), F(1,16) = 4.74, p < .05
– No group difference on any subscales using
ANOVA.
– If we do not control for gender, age, and school,
independent sample t-test did not show any group
difference on subscales or total score.
Percent of T-BIP Participants
Endorsing Internalizing Problems
• 116 participants had CDI < 19
• 20 participants (14.7%) had CID>19,
suggesting potential depression
• Among 54 female students, 16.9% had
elevated anxiety total score (1SD above the
mean).
• Among 82 male students, 17.1% had elevated
anxiety total score (1SD above the mean).
• It’s important to assess cognitive and
psychological functioning when working with
youth who bully.
Thank you!
For more information contact: Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D.
[email protected]; Twitter: @DrSueSwearer
Websites: (1) http://empowerment.unl.edu; (2) http://brnet.unl.edu
Follow us on Facebook (Bullying Research Network) and on
Twitter: @Bully_Research and @Empowerment_UNL