» Articles » PMID: 30704025

For Whom Is Anti-Bullying Intervention Most Effective? The Role of Temperament

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2019 Feb 2
PMID 30704025
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Studying moderators of the effects of anti-bullying universal interventions is essential to elucidate what works for whom and to tailor more intensive, selective, and indicated programs which meet the needs of non-responders. The present study investigated whether early adolescents' temperament-effortful control (EC), negative emotionality (NE), and positive emotionality (PE)-moderates the effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program. The sample consisted of 13 schools, with 1051 sixth-grade early adolescents (mean age = 10.93; SD = 0.501), randomly assigned to the KiVa intervention (seven schools; = 536) or to the control condition (six schools; = 516). Adolescents reported bullying and victimization before the intervention (pre-test) and after (post-test). Temperament was assessed by a self-report pre-test. Findings showed that EC and NE moderated intervention effects on bullying, indicating that subgroups with high levels of EC, and with low and medium levels of NE were those who benefited most from the intervention. The low-EC subgroup showed a lower increase compared to the control condition, with a considerable effect size. Conversely, the high-NE subgroup did not show any positive effects compared to the control group. Regarding victimization, findings showed that early adolescents with high and medium levels of PE were the subgroups who benefited the most from the intervention, whereas the low-PE subgroup was the most resistant. The present study confirms the relevance of considering temperament as a moderator of intervention effects, since interventions tailored to early adolescents with specific traits might yield larger effects.

Citing Articles

School bullying as destructive communal coping of the school community.

Bochaver A Front Psychol. 2022; 13:1021765.

PMID: 36507014 PMC: 9727086. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021765.


What Works for Whom in School-Based Anti-bullying Interventions? An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

Hensums M, de Mooij B, Kuijper S, Fekkes M, Overbeek G Prev Sci. 2022; 24(8):1435-1446.

PMID: 35796879 PMC: 10678813. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-022-01387-z.


Bullying Prevention in Adolescence: Solutions and New Challenges from the Past Decade.

Salmivalli C, Laninga-Wijnen L, Malamut S, Garandeau C J Res Adolesc. 2021; 31(4):1023-1046.

PMID: 34820956 PMC: 9271952. DOI: 10.1111/jora.12688.


Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement Used to Justify School Violence in Sicilian Primary School.

Mendez I, Liccardi G, Ruiz-Esteban C Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ. 2021; 10(3):682-690.

PMID: 34542504 PMC: 8314290. DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe10030050.


The Risk of Bullying and Probability of Help-Seeking Behaviors in School Children: A Bayesian Network Analysis.

Sitnik-Warchulska K, Wajda Z, Wojciechowski B, Izydorczyk B Front Psychiatry. 2021; 12:640927.

PMID: 34054600 PMC: 8163227. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.640927.


References
1.
Muthen B, Brown C, Masyn K, Jo B, Khoo S, Yang C . General growth mixture modeling for randomized preventive interventions. Biostatistics. 2003; 3(4):459-75. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/3.4.459. View

2.
Yanagida T, Strohmeier D, Spiel C . Dynamic Change of Aggressive Behavior and Victimization Among Adolescents: Effectiveness of the ViSC Program. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016; 48(sup1):S90-S104. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2016.1233498. View

3.
Terranova A, Morris A, Boxer P . Fear reactivity and effortful control in overt and relational bullying: a six-month longitudinal study. Aggress Behav. 2007; 34(1):104-15. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20232. View

4.
West B . Analyzing longitudinal data with the linear mixed models procedure in SPSS. Eval Health Prof. 2009; 32(3):207-28. DOI: 10.1177/0163278709338554. View

5.
Palladino B, Nocentini A, Menesini E . Evidence-based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggress Behav. 2016; 42(2):194-206. DOI: 10.1002/ab.21636. View