Different Approaches to Address Bullying in KiVa Schools: Adherence to Guidelines, Strategies Implemented, and Outcomes Obtained

Abstract

We examined the extent to which school personnel implementing the KiVa® antibullying program in Finland during 2009–2015 systematically employed the program-recommended approaches (confronting or non-confronting), used one or the other depending on the bullying case (case-specific approach), or used their own adaptation when talking to perpetrators of bullying, and whether they organized follow-up meetings after such discussions. In addition to investigating adherence to program guidelines, we tested how effective these different approaches were in stopping bullying. Finally, we tested the contribution of follow-up meetings and the number of years KiVa had been implemented in a school to the effectiveness of the interventions, using reports from both school personnel and victimized students. The data were collected annually across 6 years via online questionnaires and included responses from 1221 primary and secondary schools. The school personnel were more likely to use the confronting approach than the non-confronting approach. Over time, rather than sticking to the two program-recommended approaches, they made adaptations (e.g., combining the two; using their own approach). Two-level regression analyses indicated that the discussions were equally effective, according to both personnel and victimized students, when the confronting, non-confronting, or a case-specific approach had been used. The discussions were less effective when the personnel used their own adaptation or could not specify the method used. Perceived effectiveness was higher in primary school and when follow-up meetings were organized systematically after each intervention, but unrelated to the number of years KiVa had been implemented.

Intention to Stop Bullying following a Condemning, Empathy-Raising, or Combined Message from a Teacher – Do Students’ Empathy and Callous-Unemotional Traits Matter?

“…As expected, the students’ intention to stop bullying was on average equally high for those who saw the condemning or empathy-raising message. This finding is in line with previous studies that found no evidence that either the confronting or non-confronting approach was overall more effective than the other (Garandeau et al, 2014 b; Garandeau et al, 2016 ; Johander et al, 2021 ). However, as it was also hypothesized, the students’ intention to stop bullying was highest for those who saw the combined message.…”

“…Knowing which intervention strategies work best and for which student is essential for them. The few studies that have examined the relative effectiveness of different targeted anti-bullying interventions in real-life settings (Garandeau et al, 2014 b; Garandeau et al, 2016 ; Johander et al, 2021 ) are limited in two important ways. First, despite providing instructions to teachers about how to respond to bullying situations, the extent to which teachers followed these instructions was not known and could not be controlled for in the studies.…”

“…To date, only three studies have directly compared the confronting and non-confronting approach. Two studies examined their short-term effectiveness in the context of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the KiVa antibullying program in Finland (Garandeau et al, 2014 b; Garandeau et al, 2016 ), and one examined their long-term effectiveness after the nationwide roll-out of the same program (Johander et al, 2021 ). In the RCT, half of the intervention schools were instructed and trained to use the confronting approach, whereas the other half were instructed and trained to use the non-confronting approach; however, the exact content of the discussions was not observed or recorded.…”

“…Finally, whereas previous studies had used reports from single informants—victimized children or perpetrators—collected shortly after the intervention discussion, a recent study examined the long-term effectiveness of the same approaches using reports from both school personnel and victimized students (Johander et al, 2021 ). The data were collected annually across six years via online questionnaires and included responses from students and personnel in 1221 primary and secondary schools.…”

Understanding for Which Students and Classes a Socio-Ecological Aggression Prevention Program Works Best: Testing Individual Student and Class Level Moderators

“…Most interventions aim for sustained change in the desired direction. Of particular relevance for practice, it must be ruled out that interventions backfire once the program ends (generate changes in the direction opposite of what was intended, see e.g., Johander et al, 2020 ). Program sustainability in terms of changes between posttest and follow-up test were apparent for both aggressive behavior and victimization in the models with and without covariates.…”