It must first be acknowledged that the distinction between "prevention" and "dealing
with incidents" is somewhat artificial. For example, if
bullying is dealt with in such a way as to deter future acts
of aggression, the procedure for dealing with it can also be
said to have a preventive function. In what follows, I will focus
primarily on those actions have been suggested and undertaken
in schools to deal directly with incidents. An important distinction
can be made between actions taken by school authorities that
take the form of sanctions or penalties to be imposed on children
judged to have bullied another child or other children, and actions
that do not involve the use of sanctions or penalties. Both kinds
of actions may be regarded as "consequences" for
engaging in bullying, but the former contains a punitive element
that is absent in the latter.
The Use of Sanctions
The most commonly used method of dealing with bullying is to
identify the person who has engaged in bullying and to apply
a sanction that is considered appropriate. The rationale is
generally clear. The person who has bullied someone deserves
to have the sanction applied. It is expected that the offender
will be deterred from bullying in the future. Others learning
about how the bully has been treated by the school authorities
will be discouraged from engaging in such behavior. It
is common, however, for those who endorse this approach to
dealing with bullies to maintain that it is different from
punishing an offender. This is done by viewing the penalty
as a logical consequence of having been chosen to behave in
a certain way, rather than as an act undertaken by a person
in power to hurt somebody for behaving badly. That the person
receiving the penalty is actually hurt and sees it as a punishment
imposed by a powerful authority for behaving badly is sometimes
seen as "besides the point" (see Glasser).
The use of sanctions is generally linked with the breaking of
rules that students have been told about. It follows that the
student knows what to expect. If the students can be directly
involved in the formulation of rules relating to bullying the
use of sanctions appears more clearly justified. The sanctions
may take different forms, such as being detained by the school,
deprived of certain "privileges" such as taking
part in a game, given menial tasks to do, and in extreme cases,
being suspended or excluded from attending school The bully may
also be required to apologize to the person he or she bullied
and/or make suitable reparations, for example, when property
has been damaged.
The rationale underlying the use of sanctions has been challenged.
It has been pointed out that children who see themselves as being
punished for bullying someone are often inclined to continue
the bullying, especially if they think they can get away with
it—and often they can do so by engaging in more subtle,
covert forms of bullying. Such bullying can be just as devastating
to the victim. Moreover, protecting a victim who has informed
about the bullying can be very difficult and time consuming.
A further problem is that it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible,
to define the rule that has been broken when bullying occurs.
In the USA, some state legislatures have seen fit to pass laws
which identify "bullying" as a violation of school
rules or behavior codes. Where some forms of bullying are concerned—for
example, bullying involving repeated physical assault—it
is relatively easy to formulate appropriate rules. But, in fact,
most bullying is difficult or impossible to legislate against.
Take, for instance, milder forms of bullying involving verbal
ridicule and indirect modes of aggression, as in excluding someone
from a group. Such forms of bullying need to be confronted, but
rules to cover such behaviors are difficult or impossible to
formulate. Finally, it is sometimes maintained that sanctions
are a mere euphemism for punishment and have the same limitations
in their effectiveness as any punishment; that is, they may deter
further offensive behavior under conditions of surveillance,
but fail to result in any significant internal change. There
is no change of heart on the part of the bully, no essential
character change.
Mediation
Bullying may be viewed as a conflict between persons that is
amenable to mediation; that is, intervention by a third person
who can help the participants to reach some mutually satisfactory
outcome, which involves the abandonment of bullying tactics.
The "bully" needs to be convinced that a different,
no—bullying way of relating to the "victim" is
preferable. The victim needs to be assured that the bullying
will cease. Much may depend upon the level of skill of the
mediator and his or her perceived neutrality. Whether teachers—powerful
authority figures—can fulfill this role has been disputed.
Similarly, doubts have been expressed regarding the suitability
of students as mediators, especially in cases of bullying.
It is generally agreed that for effective mediation to take place
the participants in a dispute must be of roughly equal power.
As we have seen, it is now customary to define bullying as occurring
only in situations in which there is an imbalance of power favoring
the perpetrator. This imposes a limitation on what mediation
can achieve. Typically, the victim is anxious for the bullying
to stop. Not so the bully, who may be enjoying and profiting
by the domination of the victim. How to bring about a mutually
acceptable outcome in such a situation is often difficult. At
the same time, mediation may have a role in countering bullying,
especially before conflicts have developed, as they sometimes
do, into occasions for bullying by the more powerful party. There
are also cases in which a victim may be constantly provoking
another person and seemingly "elicit" the bullying.
It is argued that a mediator may help the participants to agree
that one of them will discontinue the provocation and the other
will abandon the bullying.
The No-Blame Approach
The term "no-blame" as applied to bullying implies
that an attempt will be made to solve the problem of bullying
without resorting to sanctions or penalties. It does not imply
that the bully is not responsible for the bullying or that the
victim is not especially deserving of support. The aim is to
change the motivation of the bully or bullies and to get them
to behave responsibly. One approach developed by two English
educationalists, Maines and Robinson, has been called the No-Blame
Approach. Their method begins when a victim is identified. This
may be through a teacher observing what has been happening or
by being told about it by the victim, the victim’s parent(s),
other children or other adults. The victim is interviewed to
discover had what happened and who was involved. It is not intended
that there should be a detailed investigation of the incident
or incidents or an attempt made at this, or any subsequent stage "to
get to the bottom of it." The focus is to be on the feelings
of the child who has been victimized. The interviewer seeks to
get permission from the child to tell the bullies how he or she
(the child) feels about it. It is emphasized that the bullies
will not be punished and that there is no reason to be fearful
of informing. To provide a graphic account the child is asked
to describe his or her feelings, if possible, in the form of
a piece of writing, a poem or a drawing. Next a meeting is convened.
This includes the bully or bullies, but also any colluders or
bystanders. The group also commonly includes children who are
specially selected because they are known to have pro-social
attitudes and are likely to exercise positive peer influence.
The victim is not included. At the meeting, the teacher or counselor
seeks to describe how the victim feels about the bullying, drawing
upon the materials that have been provided by the victim. This
may involve or a simply a description of how the victim feels
or perhaps the reading of a poem. There is no interrogation and
no blaming. The aim is simply to share
information and produce an empathic response. It is pointed out
that it is their joint responsibility to help by improving the
situation for the victim. Specific responses should be elicited
as to how the victim can be made happier. No promises are required
from the children regarding any proposals to help. The meeting
ends with the teacher handing over to the group the responsibility
for deciding how the victim is to be helped and the situation
put right. However, the teacher undertakes to meet with them
about a week later to review progress. The teacher also meets
with the victim and members of the group individually to monitor
progress and to express appreciation for the positive things
that are being done.
The assumptions underlying this approach are twofold. First,
it is believed that children who bully are potentially empathic
enough to respond positively to a description of the hurt that
has been experienced by a victim. Secondly, that most children
who are aware of the situation, as explained at the meeting,
will exert peer pressure on the bully or bullies to ensure that
constructive and responsible actions will happen that will solve
the problem. This method is seen by its advocates as superior
to an approach that relies on sanctions in that it is based upon
the idea that one can "bullying the bullies" into
submission. Its critics, however, argue that the approach is
idealistic and unrealistic, that children who bully others lack
empathy and good will and need to be deterred from bullying by
the use of effective penalties.
The Method of Shared Concern
The Method of Shared Concern is similar in some respects to the
No-Blame Approach. It was developed by the Swedish psychologist,
Anatol Pikas and has been widely use in Europe and Australia.
Its first step is to identify the problem. Unlike the No-Blame
Approach, there is no attempt initially to interview the victim.
Information is gathered by direct observations or from reports
of those who have witnessed the bullying. In this way, the
teacher or counselor seeks to identify persons who have been
involved in the bullying, the perpetrators and the victim(s),
and to learn about how the victim is being treated. Next the
suspected bullies are seen. Unlike the No-Blame Approach, the
method is to interview each of the suspected bullies individually.
No accusations are made. The meeting begins with the interviewer
inviting the student to sit in a chair opposite (without an
intervening desk) and waiting for eye contact before the interaction
begins. The interviewer starts by sharing a concern for the
person who is being victimized. Once the feelings of the interviewer
have been clearly and sincerely conveyed, the student is asked
to say what he or she knows about the situation. As soon as
the student has acknowledged some awareness (not necessarily
guilt) relating to what has been happening, the student is
asked directly what he or she can do to help improve matters.
The interviewer is not trying to "get to the bottom of
the matter" and to apportion blame but rather to elicit
a constructive response and change the situation. Commonly
the interviewees do make suggestions. But if they do not, the
interviewer may make suggestions, ones that are positive, acceptable
and not difficult to follow. The interviewer expresses strong
approval for any constructive proposals, but, importantly,
arranges for another meeting (at an agreed time) to see how
things have gone. At no time are threats made or warnings given.
Subsequently the victim is interviewed. The interviewer begins
by expressing concern, sympathy and support over what has been
happening. However, questions need to be asked to find out
whether the victim has been doing anything to bring on the
bullying; that is, by acting as a provocative victim. The interviewer
discloses that he or she has actually talked with the bullies
individually and that each of them agreed to cooperate. The
interviewer undertakes to meet again with the victim to see
how things develop. Next a meeting with the whole group is
organized. At this meeting, it is usually possible to (a) compliment
the members on the progress that has been made and (b) to "fall
in with" (or elicit) a suggestion from members of the
group that the victim be invited to join them for a final meeting
to demonstrate that the problem of bullying has really been
resolved. Reassurances are given by individual members that
they will act positively towards the victim at such a meeting.
The victim can normally be induced to join the group for a
final meeting, with assurances that there will be no unpleasantness.
Such a meeting, if well conducted, can demonstrate publicly
that the bullying is well and truly over. However, in cases
where the victim has behaved provocatively, the interviewer
must seek to facilitate adjustments in the behavior of both
sides, that is, play the role of mediator. The aim is to get
the students to reach an agreement—ideally in writing
and in an agreed form—relating to how each will behave
in future. The basic assumption here again is that children
who bully can be brought to appreciate the harm they are doing
and begin to act responsibly—if they are approached in
the right way. Unlike the No-Blame Approach, this method assumes
that the best way to approach a bully is in a one—to—one
situation. In the company of others who support their bullying
behavior, it is thought that a bully is much less likely to
experience a feeling of personal responsibility. Another difference
lies in the assumption that it is unwise to collect information
about the bullying directly from the victim prior to the meeting
with the suspected bullies. This is to avoid the impression
that the victim has informed on them because that could result
in further victimization. The interaction with the bully is
intended to help him or her to become "reindividualized" rather
than continue to bully mindlessly under the influence of a
group. This does not mean, however, that the Method of Shared
Concern is aimed at destroying groups. It recognizes that peer
groups fulfill an important role in a child’s development.
Hence, those who use this method are advised to meet with the
group of children who have engaged in bullying—after
each has individually acted responsibly—and to share
with them an appreciation of how as a group they are now functioning
in a constructive way. It does not mean either that the victim
is necessarily blameless. It is recognized that he or she may
need to change and act in a less provocative manner to prevent
further bullying. Finally, it places a good deal of emphasis
upon the need to monitor progress and to react to changes in
the situation as it develops. The originator of this method,
Anatol Pikas, has recently likened his work with individuals
involved in bully/victim problems to that of those who practice "shuttle
diplomacy" (Pikas).
The Method of Shared Concern is not without its critics. As
with the No-Blame Approach, it is sometimes thought that bullies
are bereft of empathy and cannot be brought to care about the
harm they are doing. Some argue that it requires special skills
of relating in a credible way to difficult students and that
many teachers do not possess such skills. For some it appears
too time consuming.
- Rigby EdD, Ken; What It Takes to Stop Bullying in Schools:
An Examination of the Rationale and Effectiveness of School-Based
Interventions; in Appraisal and Prediction of School Violence;
Michael J Furlong et al (eds); Nova Science Publishers Inc: New
York; 2004.
Personal
Reflection Exercise #8
The preceding section contained information about dealing
with incidents of bullying. Write three case study examples regarding
how you might use the content of this section in your practice.
Update
Editorial: Bullying, Cyberbullying,
and Dating Violence: State of the Art,
Evaluation Instruments, and Prevention
and Intervention Proposals
- Martínez-Valderrey, V., Gil-Mediavilla, M., Villasana-Terradillos, M., & Alguacil-Sánchez, S. (2023). Editorial: Bullying, cyberbullying, and dating violence: State of the art, evaluation instruments, and prevention and intervention proposals. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1119976.
Peer-Reviewed Journal Article References:
Kim, D. H., Bassett, S. M., So, S., & Voisin, D. R. (2019). Family stress and youth mental health problems: Self-efficacy and future orientation mediation.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 89(2), 125–133.
Klinck, M., Vannucci, A., Fagle, T., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2020). Appearance-related teasing and substance use during early adolescence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 34(4), 541–548.
Lazarides, R., Dicke, A.-L., Rubach, C., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). "Profiles of motivational beliefs in math: Exploring their development, relations to student-perceived classroom characteristics, and impact on future career aspirations and choices": Correction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 465.
QUESTION
According to Rigby, what are four approaches to dealing
with incidents of bullying in schools? To select and enter your answer go to Test.