Espelage, Ph.D
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Bully Prevenon: Promong Healthy Behaviors & Posive School Climate Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D. Professor, Educaonal Psychology Edward William Gutgsell & Jane Marr Gutgsell Endowed Professor Hardie Scholar University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign [email protected]; [email protected] www.dorothyespelage.com Twier: DrDotEspelage This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI) University of Illinois - Research Program ▫ SOCIAL-ECOLOGY & SCHOOL-BASED PREVENTION (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Espelage, 2012, 2014) ▫ EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE STUDY (Espelage, 1998; Low & Espelage, 2014) ▫ SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS STUDY (BirkeNt & Espelage, 2014; Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003; Espelage, Green, & Wasserman, 2007; Espelage, Green, & Polanin, 2012) ▫ SEXUAL HARASSMENT, DATING VIOLENCE, & BULLYING STUDIES (Holt & Espelage, 2003; Holt & Espelage, 2005; Espelage & Holt, 2006; Espelage, Basile, & Hambuger, 2012, 2014) ▫ THEORY OF MIND, EMPATHY, & PEER RELATIONS (Espelage et al., 2004; Mayberry & Espelage, 2006) ▫ SEXUAL VIOLENCE, & BULLYING (Poteat & Espelage, 2006; Espelage et al., 2008; Espelage et al., 2012) ▫ YOUTH & MENTAL HEALTH OUTCOMES (Espelage, Aragon, BirkeN, & Koenig, 2008; Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; BirkeN, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Robinson & Espelage, 2012, 2013) ▫ STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES - Vic+miza+on & Psychological Correlates & SEL preven+on (Rose et al., 2010; Rose & Espelage, 2012; Espelage, Rose, & Polanin, 2015, 2015) ▫ SCHOOL CLIMATE, ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT (Espelage et al., 2014, 2015) Espelage Mantra: With Awareness Comes Mispercep+on Mispercep+on in Media Scienfic Evidence Bullying is an epidemic. Bully Rates Vary Bully-suicide linked. Bully Only One of Many Predictors Bully are young criminals. Bullies are diverse in their outcomes Bullies need to be punished. Ignores Group Phenomena Bullies – dysfunc+onal families Good kids get involved in bullying Abandon Word – Bullying? • May 1, 2013: Dorothy Espelage cited in USA TODAY: “Stop using the word 'bullying' in school” • Bullying: – Vicmizaon – Aggression – Mean/Cruel Behavior – Disrespect – Sexual Harassment – Racism – Violence Cyber-Bullying “Cyber-bullying involves the use of informaon and communicaon technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hos6le behavior by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others." (Bill Belsey: www.cyberbullying.ca) Cyberbullying is inescapable (?) Cyberbullying is inescapable (?) CyberBullying (Ybarra, 2011) Cyberbullying (bullying online) affects between 15-17% of • More than 80% youth who use the youth each year; harassment Internet are *not* cyberbullied affects about 38% About 1/3 of bullied and harassed youth are very or • 75% who are bullied and harassed extremely upset youth were not upset Bullying is most commonly an in-person experience (21% are • For a concerning minority (8%), bullying bullied exclusively this way). is ubiquitous (in person, online, via text) Internet vic6mizaon is not • Text messaging vic6mizaon may be increasing increasing… Transac6onal Associaons Between School-Based Aggression/Bullying & Cyberbullying Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D. Professor, Child Development Division; Educaonal Psychology University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Co-chair, Na#onal Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence [email protected] Mrinalini Rao , M.S. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (#1U01/CE001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI) Method } Participants ◦ 1,132 students (49.1% female) ◦ 3 cohorts (5th, 6th, 7th graders) ◦ Assessed across 4 waves including Spring/Fall 2008, Spring/Fall 2009 ◦ Racially diverse (51% Black; 34% White; 3% Hispanic; 3% Asian; 9% Other) Bullying Perpetration & Cyberbullying Perpetration 0.184 0.280 0.294 Bully 0.490 Bully 0.532 Bully 0.253 Bully Perp (T1) Perp (T2) Perp (T3) Perp (T4) 0.209 0.258 0.114 0.143 0.279 0.117 Cyberbully Cyberbully Cyberbully Cyberbully Perp Perp Perp Perp (T1) 0.499 (T2) 0.590 (T3) - 0.102 (ns) (T4) - 0.239 0.131 2 Figure 1. Model Fit: χ (219, n=1132)= 945.318; RMSEA = 0.0542 (0.0506 ; 0.0577); NNFI = .0975; CFI = 0.980 Espelage, Rao, & Craven, 2013 Bullying Victimization and Cyberbullying Perpetration 0.160 0.258 0.452 0.582 0.313 Bully Bully Bully Bully Victim (T1) Victim (T2) Victim (T3) Victim (T4) 0.278 0.279 0.195 0.077 0.100 0.064 0.101 Cyberbully Cyberbully Cyberbully Cyberbully Perp (T1) Perp (T2) Perp (T3) Perp (T4) 0.543 0.564 0.115 0.187 2 Figure 2. Model Fit: χ (222, n=1132)= 854.147; RMSEA = 0.0486 (0.0453 ; 0.0525); NNFI = .0965; CFI = 0.972 Espelage, Rao, & Craven, 2013 Bullying Perpetraon & Sexual Violence Perpetra+on Among Middle School Students: Gender-Based Bias MaNers Dorothy L. Espelage, Ph.D. Lisa De La Rue, Ph.D. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign & Kathleen C. Basile, Ph.D. Division of Violence Prevenon Centers for Disease Control & Prevenon, Atlanta, Georgia Merle E. Hamburger, Ph.D. Journal of Adolescent Health (2012), Journal of Interpersonal Violence (2014) This research was supported by Centers for Disease Control & Preven6on (#1u01/ce001677) to Dorothy Espelage (PI) 2008-2010 CDC Study Participants } Demographics: – 1,350 students (49.1% female) – 3 cohorts (5th, 6th, 7th graders) – Racially diverse (51% Black, 34% White) – 60% Free/reduced lunch 5 waves of data collection (from spring 2008-spring 2010) Percentages of Youth who Bully Percentages of Youth Who Engage in Homophobic Name-Calling Bullying – Homophobic Teasing Perpetration (Espelage et al., under review; Little, 2013) Take-Away Messages • Homophobic name-calling is prevalent in middle school (Meyer, 2009, 2010). • Youth who bully resort to homophobic name-calling over the middle school years. • Bully prevention programs should include a discussion of language that marginalizes gender non-conforming and LGBT youth. Longitudinal Results Bullying Perpetraon Wave 1 + + Sexual Homophobic + Harassment Teasing Perpetraon Perpetraon Wave 2 (5) + Wave 1 Controlling for: Sexual + Harassment Perpetraon Wave 1 (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012; Espelage, Basile, & De La Rue, 2014) Take-Away Messages • Strong longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic bantering, and sexual harassment perpetration. • For boys, bullying-sv link moderated by homophobic name-calling (Espelage et al., 2014) Developmental model of bullying, sexual harassment and dang violence Espelage, Rose, Colbert, Lible, & Rao, under review Traditional Masculinity – Students who bully others are more likely to also sexually harass other students at school. – This longitudinal associaon is strongest for those boys and girls that adopt tradi6onal masculine ideology. – That is, if boys and girls think that boys should be stoic, not express emo6on then their bullying of others will lead to an increase in sexually harassing behaviors. (Espelage, Rao, & Lible, 2012; Lible, 2013) Implications for Prevention • Research must consider multiple contexts to identify longitudinal predictors, mediators, moderators associated with outcomes for youth who bully. • Bullying programs need to incorporate discussion of gender-based name-calling, sexual violence, and gender expression (homophobic language; Birkett & Espelage, 2010; Meyer, 2009, 2010). Social-Ecological Perspec+ve Society Community School Family Child /Peers (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Espelage & Horne, 2007; Espelage, in press) Meta-Analytic Study • Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek (2010) – Reviewed 153 studies since 1970 – Youth who bully other students: have significant externalizing behavior, social competence and academic challenges, negative attitudes toward others, family characterized by conflict – Peer Status & Bully varied by age: Adolescents who bully have higher peer status than children who bully others Individual Correlates of Bullying Involvement • Depression/Anxiety • Empathy • Delinquency • Impulsivity • Other forms of Aggression • Alcohol/Drug Use • Positive Attitudes toward Violence/ Bullying • Low Value for Prosocial Behaviors – For review (Espelage & Horne, 2007; Espelage & Holt, 2012) Family & School Risk Factors n FAMILY n SCHOOL – Lack of supervision – Lack of supervision – Lack of aachment – Lack of aachment – Negave, cri6cal – Negave, cri6cal relaonships relaonships – Lack of discipline/ – Lack of discipline/ consequences consequences – Support for violence – Support for violence – Modeling of violence – Modeling of violence For review (Espelage, 2012; Espelage & Horne, 2007) How do you think we are doing in reducing school bullying? Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 Journal of Experimental Criminology • Most comprehensive meta-analysis that applied the Campbell Systemac Review procedures. • Reviewed 44 rigorous program evaluaons and randomized clinical trials (RCT) (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). • Almost 2/3 of the studies were conducted outside of the US or Canada. • 1/3 of the programs were based on the Olweus Bully Prevenon Program (Olweus, 1999). • Found that the programs, on average, were associated with a 20% – 23% decrease in bullying perpetraon, and a 17% – 20% decrease in vic6mizaon. • However, smaller effect sizes were found for RCT designs in comparison to non-RCT designs. Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 Journal of Experimental Criminology • Decreases in rates of vicmiza%on were associated with the following special program elements: – disciplinary methods – parent training/mee6ngs – use of videos, – cooperave group work – greater duraon and intensity of the program