Responding to Individuals Involved in Bullying

Dr. Susan Swearer

June 8, 2015

Educator and School Mental Health Provider Conference

BU School of EducationBoston, MA

@DrSueSwearer

@Bully_Research

@Empowerment_UNL

• Tweet comments and questions!

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)

Community School/

Peers

Family ChildSociety/Culture

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 anger-

management 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 Feedback-

Based 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 therapueuticassessment approach (Finn, 1998).

Target Bullying Intervention (Swearer, 2005)

• Three components:(1) ASSESSMENT

(2) PSYCHOEDUCATION/CBT – PowerPoint, Quiz, BullyBusters Worksheets, Bullying Video, Role-playing; 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, bully-victims 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 MASC_PS MASC_HA MASC_SA MASC_Sep

MASC_

Index

Bully Mean 34.93 7.07 13.26 8.05 6.56 9.60

SD 16.25 6.15 5.63 5.17 4.33 4.19

Victim Mean 44.71 10.79 15.64 10.93 7.36 13.14

SD 21.37 7.23 5.17 7.44 5.40 5.22

Bully-victim

Mean

44.28 9.35 15.24 12.53 7.16 13.01

SD 17.51 6.86 4.64 6.94 4.61 4.68

Bystander

Mean

29.67 3.33 16.00 6.78 3.56 9.33

SD 9.17 3.32 2.83 4.84 3.13 2.74

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

Self-centered Blaming Others

Minimizing/Misla

beling

Assuming the

Worst

Bully Mean 2.69 2.90 2.74 2.85

SD 0.98 0.93 0.97 0.84

Victim Mean 2.01 2.61 1.94 2.62

SD 0.75 0.82 0.82 0.72

Bully-victim

Mean2.38 2.74 2.37 2.65

SD 0.75 0.84 0.81 0.73

Bystander

Mean2.21 2.49 2.14 2.65

SD 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

scholastic social athletic physical behavioral selfworth

Bully Mean 2.79 3.30 2.95 3.07 2.40 3.14

SD 0.55 0.47 0.61 0.52 0.56 0.52

Victim

Mean2.80 2.77 2.81 3.04 2.85 3.17

SD 0.60 0.76 0.76 0.73 0.78 0.38

Bully-victim

Mean

2.73 2.75 2.75 2.62 2.38 2.89

SD 0.72 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.57 0.68

Bystander

Mean

2.96 3.35 3.46 3.08 2.48 3.27

SD 0.38 0.34 0.50 0.58 0.47 0.43

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 SD

MASC_ total** Female 46.17 17.81

Male 36.60 16.84

MASC_ Social anxiety

***

Female 12.72 6.99

Male 9.04 6.03

MASC_ Separation

anxiety***

Female 8.35 4.49

Male 5.71 4.40

MASC_Index* Female 12.74 4.95

Male 11.09 4.54

CDI_total + Female 12.20 8.67

Male 9.62 6.28

Gender Differences in Self Concept and Cognitive Distortions

Mean SD

Athletic competence*** Female 2.60 0.71

Male 3.04 0.69

Minimizing the problem * Female 2.18 0.84

Male 2.55 0.89

Preliminary Group Analysis: Callous-Unemotional Traits (ICU)

• We only collected data on ICU from a small group of

students , n = 27, 14 bullies, 1 victim, 10 bully-

victims, 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.

sswearer@unl.edu; 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