Hypotheses for Possible Iatrogenic Impacts of School Bullying Prevention Programs

Abstract

Commensurate with the serious risks bullying poses to students’ mental health, substantial attention has been devoted to evaluating school bullying prevention programs. Research on the effectiveness of these interventions shows mixed outcomes. Recent evidence suggests that even programs that reduce overall bullying may have negative outcomes for victims. Most bullying prevention programs incorporate a range of strategies, but we know little about which strategies actively reduce bullying and whether some may have iatrogenic effects. Questions have been raised about programs that involve working with peer bystanders and whether some strategies stigmatize victims. In this article, I propose three theoretically derived hypotheses that describe mechanisms through which encouraging peers to actively defend victims may produce adverse outcomes for victims. More research is needed to test these hypotheses. A deeper understanding of the differential impact of bullying prevention strategies will lead to improvements in programs and more targeted use of effective strategies.

Does being defended relate to decreases in victimization and improved psychosocial adjustment among victims?

“…Importantly, we did not find any adverse effects of being defended, and our findings on enhanced feelings of belonging are at odds with this theorizing on potential adverse effects. Nevertheless, it is possible that potential benefits induced by heightened perceived emotional and instrumental support (McDougall & Vaillancourt, 2015) may not have been detected due to the co-occurrence of equally strong disadvantageous effects for victims (Healy, 2020).…”

“…A potential explanation for why we only detected such a limited effect of being defended, could be that some of the benefits of being defended are partially cancelled out by equally strong adverse effects that may also occur. In a recent commentary (Healy, 2020), it is theorized that defended victims may be even worse off than nondefended victims because defending could disempower victims by making them dependent on their helpers and encouraging the belief that these victims cannot solve problems themselves. It can also be reasoned that defending could provoke additional bullying attempts if this defending is enacted in inappropriate or aggressive ways—this could elicit revanche of bullies or stigmatize victims by making them stand out from other peers as the ones needing special treatment in contrast to those who can stand up for themselves.…”

“…Another explanation for the nonsignificant findings on depressed feelings, self-esteem, and victimization, could be that the effectiveness of being defended varies as a function of individual or relational moderating factors that could not be considered in the current study. For instance, defending may lead to better outcomes for victims when they are defended by their best friends, because these are the peers that presumably mean the most to them and from whom they expect a certain level of support (Healy, 2020; Jenkins & Nickerson, 2019). The effect of being defended could also depend on the type of defending, or on the combination of these types.…”

“…The assumption that defending victims would help decrease bullying and improve their psychosocial adjustment has led many antibullying interventions to promote peer defending in situations of bullying (Polanin et al, 2012). However, longitudinal studies on the effects of being defended for victims are lacking, and it remains uncertain whether promoting defending of victims is indeed beneficial for them (see Healy, 2020). Therefore, the current study used a large-scale, longitudinal, nationwide study to investigate whether being defended predicted a decrease in victimization and improvements in victims' psychosocial adjustment, and whether these effects depended on classroom defending norms.…”

Trends in Adolescent Online and Offline Victimization and Suicide Risk Factors

“…Additionally, the long-term impact of certain interventions may have unintended consequences of harming certain adolescents, even if the overall environment is healthier. 39 This is known as the healthy context paradox and may stem from added self-blame, isolation, or targeting of specific adolescents by bullies as fewer peers face victimization. Reinforcing messaging and norms that reduce victim blame for violence and feelings of isolation (ie, sharing that others have faced similar hardships) while…”