Content uploaded by Dan A. Olweus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dan A. Olweus on Jul 17, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
BULLYING IN SCHOOLS: FACTS AND INTERVENTION
Dan Olweus
Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen, Norway
"For two years, Johnny, a quiet 13-year-old, was a human plaything for some of his classmates. The
teenagers badgered Johnny for money, forced him to swallow weeds and drink milk mixed with
detergent, beat him up in the rest room and tied a string around his neck, leading him around as a
"pet". When Johnny's torturers were interrogated about the bullying, they said they pursued their
victim because it was fun" (newspaper clipping presented in Olweus,1993, p.7).
This short newspaper clipping gives a dismal picture of the cruelty children and youth can
show towards one another under certain conditions. And it demonstrates what a nightmare life at
school can be for a victimised student - often without the parents or the teachers knowing much about
what goes on.
Bullying among schoolchildren is certainly a very old phenomenon. Though many are
acquainted with the problem, it was not until fairly recently - in the early 1970s - that the phenomenon
was made the object of more systematic research (Olweus, 1973a, 1978). For a number of years,
these efforts were largely confined to Scandinavia. In the late 1980s and the 1990s, however, bullying
among school children attracted attention also in several other countries such as Japan, Great Britain,
the Netherlands, Canada, USA , and Spain (see Olweus, 1993, for references). In the past 10 years
or so, there has been an almost explosive development in this area, both in terms of research,
intervention, and national policies (e.g., Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, Catalano, & Slee, 1999;
Juvonen, & S. Graham, 2001; Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004) In the USA,
this increased attention has been fuelled by some highly publicised school shootings in which the
tragic events have been at least partly linked to bully/victim problems in the students involved
(Anderson. et al., 2001).
Against this background, I will now briefly discuss the definitions of bullying and violence and
present some research data on prevalence and characteristics of bullies and victims. After that, my
presentation will focus on the intervention work against bully/victim problems we have conducted in
Norway over the past 20 years and on a new national intervention and prevention initiative.
2
Definitions of school bullying and violence
Already in the mid-80’s (Olweus, 1986, 1993), I developed the following definition of bullying:
• “A student is being bullied or victimised when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over
time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students.”
It is a negative action when someone intentionally inflicts, or attempts to inflict, injury or
discomfort upon another - basically what is implied in the definition of aggressive behaviour (Olweus,
1973b; Berkowitz, 1993). Negative actions can be carried out by physical contact, by words, or in
other ways, such as making faces or mean gestures, and intentional exclusion from a group. In order
to use the term bullying, there should also be an imbalance in power or strength (an asymmetric
relationship): The student who is exposed to the negative actions has difficulty defending himself or
herself.
In a somewhat more general language, bullying behaviour can be defined as “intentional,
repeated negative (unpleasant or hurtful) behaviour by one or more persons directed against a person
who has difficulty defending himself or herself”. According to this definition which seems to have
gained considerable acceptance among researchers and practitioners alike, the phenomenon of
bullying can thus be described as:
• aggressive behaviour or intentional “harm doing”
• carried out repeatedly and over time
• in an interpersonal relationship characterised by an actual or perceived imbalance of power
or strength.
One may add that much bullying seems to occur without apparent provocation on the part of
the person being targeted. This definition makes it clear that bullying can be considered a form of
abuse, and sometimes I use the term peer abuse as a label of the phenomenon. What sets it apart
from other forms of abuse such as child abuse and wife abuse is the context in which it occurs and the
relationship characteristics of the interacting parties.
This definition has then been “operationalised” in a more concrete and student-friendly way in my
Revised Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996; Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
The meaning and definition of the term violence is more controversial. Some people use the
term violence or violent behaviour as roughly synonymous with aggression or aggressive behaviour
(above). With such a “definition”, it may be natural to talk about “psychological violence” and maybe
3
“emotional violence”. Others employ an even wider “definition” and use expressions such as “structural
or institutional violence ” Without going into detail, I think such uses of the term violence are
somewhat unfortunate, creating confusion and problems of operationalisation and measurement.
For several reasons, I want to argue that violence/violent behaviour should be defined as
aggressive behaviour where the actor or perpetrator uses his or her own body or an object (including a
weapon) to inflict (relatively serious) injury or discomfort upon another individual. The dictionary
meaning of violence is very similar implying use of physical force or power. The definition of violent
offences in criminal law (including homicide, aggravated assault, assault, robbery and rape) is also
based on a closely related understanding. In similarity with bullying, violence is thus a subcategory of
aggressive behaviour but with its own special characteristics.
The relationships among the three key terms of concern are graphically illustrated in the Venn
diagram shown in Figure 1. Aggression/aggressive behaviour is the general and overarching term
(the area delineated by the large, outer circle), whereas both bullying and violence/violent behaviour
are subcategories of aggressive behaviour (covering smaller areas within the large circle). As shown
by the shaded area, there is also a certain overlap between violence and bullying. This area denotes
situations in which bullying is carried out by physical means or contact (above), or expressed
differently, when physical means are used in the context of bullying (e.g., hitting, kicking, shoving etc.
in situations where the general criteria of bullying are met). The diagram also makes it clear that there
is a good deal of bullying without violence (e.g., bullying by words, gestures, intentional exclusion from
the group etc) and, likewise, that there is a good deal of violence that cannot be characterized as
bullying (e.g., an occasional fight in the school yard, or a row over some trifle between unacquainted,
drunk people in a restaurant line).
Insert Figure 1 about here
Admittedly, the discussion above does not treat the definitional issues involved in enough
detail or breadth but, at the very least, it makes clear in what direction I think the field should move on
this topic.
Some prevalence data
On the basis of our surveys of more than 130,000 Norwegian students conducted in 1983 with an
early version of my Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996), it could be estimated that that some
15% of the students in elementary and lower secondary schools (grades 3-10, roughly corresponding
4
to ages 8 through 16) in Norway were involved in bully/victim problems with some regularity (“2 or 3
times a month”) - either as bullies, victims or bully-victims (Olweus, 1993). This percentage
represented one student out of seven. Approximately 9 percent were victims, and 6-7 percent bullied
other students with some regularity. Some 1,5 percent of the students were both victim and bully
(approximately 17% of the victims). A total of some 5% of the students were involved in the most
serious form of bullying problems (as bullies, victims, or bully/victims), occurring about once a week or
more frequently. As the prevalence questions in the Questionnaire refer to only part of the autumn
term, there is little doubt that the figures presented actually give a lower-bound estimate of the number
of students involved in bully/victim problems during a whole year.
A new large-scale survey of some 11.000 students from 54 elementary and junior high schools
made in 2001 and using the same questions as in 1983 (Olweus, 1996, 2002) gave much the same
picture as before but we could note two disturbing trends: 1) The percentage of victimised students
had increased by approximately 50 % from 1983; and, 2) the percentage of students who were
involved in the most serious form of bullying problems (Solberg & Olweus, 2003) had increased by
some 65%. These increases were seen as an indication of a negative societal development. The data
from the recent survey are presented in Figures 2 and 3.
Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here
It is apparent, then, that bullying is a considerable problem in Norwegian schools, a problem
that affects a very large number of students. Survey data from other countries (in large measure
collected with my Bully/Victim Questionnaire) indicate that this problem certainly exists also outside
Norway and with similar or, usually, even higher prevalence rates (also see Olweus & Limber, 1999:
Smith, Morita, Junger-Tas, Olweus, & Slee, 1999). It should be emphasised in this context that
national differences in level of bully/victim problems must be interpreted with considerable caution,
since student responses may be affected by such factors as the availability in the foreign language of
appropriate words for the key terms, familiarity with the concept of bullying in the relevant culture,
degree of public attention to the phenomenon etc.
Bully/victim problems by grade and gender
As seen in Figure 2, the percentage of students who reported being bullied decreased with
higher grades. It was the younger and weaker students who were most exposed. With regard to the
5
ways in which the bullying was carried out, there was a clear trend towards less use of physical means
(physical violence) in the higher grades. A considerable part of the bullying was carried out by older
students. This was particularly marked in the lower grades. As regards the tendency to bully other
students, depicted in Figure 3, the changes with grades were not so clear and systematic as in Figure
2. However, even if the results may vary somewhat in different cohorts of students, we usually find a
trend towards increased bullying in higher grades, in particular for boys as was also the case in Figure
3.
As evident from Figure 2, there was a trend for boys to be somewhat more exposed to bullying
than girls. This tendency was particularly marked in the higher grades. Figure 3 shows the percentage
of students who had taken part in bullying other students with some regularity. It is evident that a
considerably larger percentage of boys had participated in bullying other students. In the higher
grades, more than four times as many boys as girls reported having bullied other students.
Bullying by physical means was more common among boys. In contrast, girls often used more
subtle and indirect ways of harassment such as slandering, spreading rumours, and manipulation of
friendship relationships. Nonetheless, harassment with non-physical means – by words, in particular -
was the most common form of bullying among both boys and girls.
An additional result was that boys carried out a large part of the bullying to which girls were
exposed. More than 50 percent of bullied girls reported being bullied mainly by boys. An additional
15-25 percent said they were bullied by both boys and girls. The great majority of boys, on the other
hand - more than 80% - were bullied chiefly by boys.
In summary, boys were more often victims and in particular perpetrators of direct bullying. This
conclusion is in good agreement with what can be expected from research on sex differences in
aggressive behaviour. It is well documented that relations among boys are by and large harder,
tougher, and more aggressive than among girls (e.g., Maccoby, 1986). These differences certainly
have both biological and social/environmental roots. It may be added that being a bully or a victim is
something that can last for a long time, often for several years (Olweus, 1977, 1979, 2003).
The results presented here should by no means be construed as implying that we do not need
to pay attention to bullying problems among girls. As a matter of course, such problems must be
acknowledged and counteracted, whether girls are the victims of bullying or they themselves
6
perpetrate such behaviour. No doubt, being bullied in indirect and subtle ways can be equally hurtful
and damaging as being bullied in more open and direct ways.
Briefly about the origins of bully/victim problems
The research evidence collected so far clearly suggests that personality characteristics or typical
reaction patterns, in combination with physical strength or weakness in the case of boys, are important
for the development of these problems in individual students. At the same time, environmental factors
such as the attitudes, routines, and behaviour of relevant adults – in particular teachers and principals
- play a major role in determining the extent to which the problems will manifest themselves in a larger
unit such as a classroom or a school (see Olweus, 1993). The attitudes and behaviour of relevant
peers as manifested in group processes and mechanisms are certainly also important. Accordingly,
analyses of the causes of bully/victim problems must be pursued on several different levels.
Characteristics of typical victims and bullies
The most common type of victims, the passive or submissive victims, usually have some of
the following characteristics:
• are cautious, sensitive, quiet, withdrawn and shy
• are anxious, insecure, unhappy and have low self-esteem
• are depressed and engage in suicidal ideation much more often than their peers
• often do not have a single good friend and relate better to adults than to peers
• If they are boys, they are often physically weaker than their peers.
Some of these characteristics have very likely contributed to making them victims of bullying.
At the same time, it is obvious that the repeated harassment by peers must have considerably
increased their insecurity and generally negative evaluation of themselves. Accordingly, part of these
characteristics are both causes and consequences of bullying.
There is also another, clearly smaller group of victims, the provocative victims or bully-victims,
who are characterised by a combination of both anxious and aggressive reaction patterns. These
students often have problems with concentration, and may struggle with reading and writing
difficulties. They often behave in ways that may cause irritation and tension around them. Some of
these students can be characterised as hyperactive. It is not uncommon that their behaviour provokes
many students in the class, thus resulting in negative reactions from a large part of, or even the entire
7
class. The dynamics of bully/victim problems in a class with provocative victims differ in part from
problems in a class with passive victims (Olweus, 1978, 2001a)
Bullies tend to exhibit some of the following characteristics:
• strong needs to dominate and subdue other students and to get their own way
• are impulsive and easily angered
• show little empathy toward students who are victimised
• are often defiant and aggressive toward adults, including parents and teachers
• are often involved in other antisocial or rule-breaking activities such as vandalism,
delinquency, and drug use
• If they are boys, they are often physically stronger than boys in general and their victims in
particular
It may be added that in contrast to what is commonly belied, they do not have special problems
with their self-esteem.
As regards the possible psychological sources underlying bullying behaviour, the pattern of
empirical findings suggests at least three, partly interrelated motives. First, the bullies have strong
needs for power and dominance; they seem to enjoy being "in control" and to subdue others. Second,
considering the family conditions under which many of them have been reared (Olweus, 1980, 1993),
it is natural to assume that they have developed a certain degree of hostility toward the environment;
such feelings and impulses may make them derive satisfaction from inflicting injury and suffering upon
other individuals. Finally, there is clearly an "instrumental or benefit component" to their behaviour.
Bullies often coerce their victims to provide them with money, cigarettes, beer, and other things of
value. In addition, it is obvious that their aggressive behaviour is in many situations rewarded in the
form of prestige.
Some group mechanisms
When several students jointly engage in the bullying of another student, certain social
psychological/group mechanisms are likely to be at work. Several such mechanisms have been
discussed in some detail in Olweus (1978, 1993). Because of space limitations, they are only listed
here: 1) Social "contagion"; 2) Weakening of the control or inhibitions against aggressive tendencies;
3) "Diffusion of responsibility"; and 4) Gradual cognitive changes in the perceptions of bullying and of
8
the victim. All of these mechanisms can contribute to an understanding and explanation of why certain
students who are usually nice and non-aggressive participate in bullying without great misgivings.
The Bullying Circle
Bullies and victims naturally occupy key positions in the configuration of bully/victim problems
in a classroom or school, but other students also play important roles and display different attitudes
and reactions toward an acute bullying situation. Figure 4 outlines the "Bullying Circle" and represents
the various ways in which most students in a classroom or school with bully/victim problems are
involved in or affected by them (Olweus, 2001a, 2001b).
Insert Figure 4 about here
A question of fundamental human rights
The victims of bullying form a large group of students who have been and still often are to a
considerable degree neglected by the school. For a long time, I have argued that it is a fundamental
human right for a child to feel safe in school and to be spared the oppression and repeated humiliation
implied in bullying. No student should be afraid of going to school for fear of being harassed or
degraded, and no parent should need to worry about such things happening to his or her child!
Already in 1981, I proposed introduction of a law against bullying at school. At that time, there
was little political support for the idea. In 1994, however, this suggestion was followed up in Sweden
with a new school law article including formulations that are very similar to those expressed above. In
addition, the law and associated regulations place responsibility for realisation of this goal, including
development of an intervention program against bullying for the individual school, with the principal. A
similar law article has now been introduced in Norway and several other countries (see e.g., Smith et
al., 1999).
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has been developed and evaluated over a period of
more than 20 years (Olweus, 1993, 2001b).
It
builds on four key principles derived chiefly from
research on the development and modification of the implicated problem behaviours, especially
aggressive behaviour. These principles involve creating a school—and ideally, also a home—
environment characterised by
9
• warmth, positive interest, and involvement from adults
• firm limits on unacceptable behaviour
• consistent application of non-punitive, non-physical sanctions for unacceptable behaviour or
violations of rules
• adults who act as authorities and positive role models.
The overriding message of the program is: We don't accept bullying at our school and will see to it
that it comes to an end.
An important goal is to change the “opportunity and reward structures” in
such ways that there are fewer possibilities and rewards for bullying behaviour in school and
elsewhere.
The listed principles have been translated into a number of specific measures to be used at the
school, classroom, and individual levels (Olweus, 1993, 2001b). Figure 5 shows the set of core
components that our statistical analyses and experience with the program have shown particularly
important in any implementation of the program
1
.
Insert Figure 5 about here
Research-based evaluations of the OBPP
We have now conducted six large-scale evaluations of the program in Norway comprising
several hundred schools and more than 30 000 students. Here I will only give a brief summary of four
of the evaluations, three of which are part of a new national initiative to be described below. The latter
three projects, running from 2001 to 2003 and comprising three independent cohorts of schools, have
the same structure and have given very similar results. Accordingly, to simplify presentation, the
results from these projects will be combined in this context..
In all four projects to be described, we have employed a variant of what is usually called a
selection cohort design the characteristics of which have been discussed in more detail elsewhere
(Cook & Campbell, 1979; Olweus, 2004a). We focus here in particular on students in grades 4 through
7 (with modal ages of approximately 10 to 13 years) where important components of the program were
more fully implemented. In all statistical analyses, the hierarchical or nested structure of the data (with
students nested within classrooms nested within schools) have been taken into account. All main
conclusions are based on results that are statistically significant or, usually, highly significant.
10
The First Bergen Project
The first evaluation of the effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program involved data
from approximately 2,500 students in 42 elementary and lower secondary schools in Bergen, Norway.
The students were followed students for two and one-half years, from 1983 to 1985 (Olweus, 1991,
2004; Olweus & Alsaker, 1991). The main results can be summarised in the following points:
• Marked reductions - by 50 percent or more - in self-reported bully/victim problems for the
periods studied, with 8 and 20 months of intervention, respectively. By and large, the results
applied to both boys and girls and to students from all grades studied. Similar results were
obtained for a kind of aggregated peer rating variables and teacher ratings.
• Clear reductions in general antisocial behaviour such as vandalism, fighting with the police,
pilfering, drunkenness, and truancy.
• Marked improvement as regards various aspects of the "social climate" of the class:
improved order and discipline, more positive social relationships, and a more positive
attitude to schoolwork and the school. At the same time, there was an increase in student
satisfaction with school life.
Detailed analyses of the quality of the data and the possibility of alternative interpretations of the
findings led to the following conclusions (Olweus, 1991): It is very difficult to explain the results
obtained as a consequence of (a) underreporting by the students, (b) gradual changes in the students'
attitudes to bully/victim problems, (c) repeated measurement, and (d) concomitant changes in other
factors, including general time trends.
In addition, a clear "dosage-response" relationship (r=.51, n=80) was established in analyses at
the classroom level which is the natural unit of analysis in this case: Those teachers/classrooms that
obtained larger reductions in bully/victim problems had implemented three important components of
the intervention program (including establishment of class rules against bullying and use of regular
class meetings) to a greater extent than those with smaller changes. This finding provides
corroborating evidence for the hypothesis that the changes observed were a consequence of the
intervention program and not of some other “irrelevant” factor.
Results in connection with the New National Initiative
11
As mentioned, the research project associated with “New National Initiative against Bullying”
comprised more than one hundred schools with approximately 21000 students in grades 4 –7.
These schools applied for participation in the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program at three different
time points, the autumn of 2001, the spring of 2002 and the autumn of 2002 at which they also took
the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire for a base line assessment. The second measurement with the
same instrument occurred one year later, when the schools had worked with the program for
approximately 8 months.
Figures 6 and 7 present the results, with the data from the three cohorts collapsed.
Insert Figures 6 and 7 about here
For boys and girls combined, the level of being bullied (“2 or 3 times a month” in the past
couple of months) before intervention was 14.2 percent (second bar from right in Figure 6). One year
later, after approximately 8 months of intervention, this figure had been reduced to 9.4 percent, a
relative reduction by 34 percent.
In Figure 7, the variable portrayed is bullying other students The general pattern of results
was very similar to what was reported for being bullied in Figure 6 , but at a lower level, as expected.
For boys and girls combined, the relative reduction amounted to 44 percent, from 5.5 percent to 3.1
percent.
Basically similar results were obtained when the data were analysed separately for the two
genders, the four grades, and when a stricter criterion –“about once a week” or more often – was used
in classifying students as being bullied or bullying other students. Marked improvements could thus be
registered also for students who had been involved in the most serious form of bully/victim problems
(Solberg & Olweus, 2003).
It should be remembered that in calculating the percentages of reduction reported above, we
did not just follow the same subjects over time and calculated the degree of change for each
participant from base line to follow-up. Such an approach would not take into account the changes that
naturally occur with age. A critical aspect of the selection cohort design is that the key comparisons
are being made between age-equivalent groups (Olweus, 2004, 2005). In our study, for example, the
data for grade 5 students at follow-up (after 8 months of intervention) were compared with the base
12
line data (before intervention) for the grade 5 students in the same schools. The same procedure was
followed for the other grades.
In more detailed analyses, we could register a number of changes in other areas or
dimensions which also strongly supported the interpretation that the positive results were a
consequence of the intervention. As an illustration, the students reported about more active
intervention in bullying situations from both teachers and peers at follow-up as compared to base line.
Also, at follow-up there were clearly more students who responded that the homeroom/main
classroom teacher had made “much or a good deal” to counter bullying in the class in the past few
months.
The logic or structure of the (extended) selection cohort design indicates that a “history
interpretation” may be a possible threat to the validity of the results (Cook & Campbell, 1979; Olweus,
2004). This implies that the researcher must try to rule out or minimise the possibility that general time
trends or some “irrelevant” factor concomitant to the intervention could account for the results. As
explained in some detail in a different article (Olweus, 2005), our results indicate that, without
systematic and effective intervention, the levels of bully/victim problems characterising successive,
largely comparable cohorts of schools at different time points or a cohort of schools followed over time,
will be quite stable at least for a period of a couple of years. This result represents an important
verification of an assumption that up to now has had a less systematic empirical underpinning. Most
importantly, this verification implies that a “history interpretation” in terms of general time trends or
special media attention, for example, cannot reasonably be invoked as an explanation of the positive
changes in the level of bully/victim problems in our intervention schools in the New National Initiative
Project.
It should also be mentioned that for approximately half of the schools from the first cohort we
obtained follow-up data (32 schools with about 4000 students) two years after the first measurement
occasion and approximately 6 months after the implementation phase of the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program had ended. These data showed that the reductions gained after one year were
maintained or even slightly increased after two years. These schools were roughly similar to the total
cohort of schools in terms of problem levels at Time 1, and degree of reduction of problems between
Time 1 and Time 2. These results indicate that the Time 1–Time 2 reductions were not a temporary
and short-lived phenomenon contingent on constant participation in the program. Although the follow-
13
up period (so far) was relatively limited, the findings suggest that these schools may have actually
changed their culture, readiness and competence to deal with and prevent bully/victim problems in a
more long-term way.
While systematic use of the program with students in grades 4 through 7 has consistently
produced very positive results, which seem to be relatively unique in an international perspective (see
Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004), it should also be mentioned that the effects have been more variable
with students from lower secondary school grades. In about half of our evaluation projects, results with
students in that age range have been less successful than with younger students when the evaluation
has been made after 8 months of intervention. Recent analyses have shown, however, that after 20
months’ of intervention, results with students in the higher age range have been almost as good as for
the younger students after 8 months’ of intervention. It is clearly more difficult to get consistently good
results for lower secondary schools.and it takes somewhat longer time to achieve such results.
The need for evidence-based intervention programs
As bully/victim problems have gradually been placed on the official school agenda in many
countries, a number of suggestions about their handling and prevention have been proposed. Some of
these suggestions and approaches seem ill-conceived or maybe even counterproductive, such as
excessive focus on changing the victims’ behaviour to make them less vulnerable to bullying. Others
appear meaningful and potentially useful. A key problem, however, is that most of them have either
failed to document positive results or have never been subjected to systematic research evaluation.
Therefore it is difficult to know which programs or measures actually work and which do not. Yet it is
the results with the students that count, not how adults might feel about using the program (“user
satisfaction”).
The situation is well illustrated by the following facts. Recently, a US expert committee under
the leadership of a respected criminologist , professor Delbert Elliott, made a systematic evaluation of
more than 500 presumably violence (or problem-behaviour) preventing programs according to certain
minimum-level criteria (see Elliott, 1999). These criteria were:
• that the program had produced positive effects on relevant target groups (students in this
case) in a relatively rigorous scientific evaluation
• that the effects had lasted for at least one year
14
• that the program had produced positive results in at least one site beyond the original one.
Only 10 of the programs (four of which are school-based) satisfied the specified criteria. These
so-called “Blueprint” or evidence-based or model programs are now being implemented in a number of
sites in the USA
A similar evaluation by an officially appointed, departmental committee was recently made in
Norway. In this case, 57 programs designed to counteract and/or prevent “problem behaviour” and in
use in Norwegian schools were evaluated (Rapport 2000). Only one program was recommended for
further use without reservations.
The fact that the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program is one of the 10 (now 11) Blueprint
programs (Olweus & Limber, 1999) and, maybe in particular, was the program selected by the
Norwegian committee, is likely to be an important background for the recent government-funded
national initiative in Norway.
A new national initiative against bullying in Norway
In late 2000, the Department of Education and Research (UFD) and the Department of Children
and Family Affairs (BFD) decided that the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program was to be offered on a
large-scale basis to Norwegian elementary and lower secondary schools over a period of years. In
building up the organisation and infrastructure for this national initiative, two overriding principles
guided our work:
• to try to ensure that the program was implemented according to the intentions of the
program designer, that is, with reasonable fidelity (quality control)
• to try to get the program implemented in a reasonable number of schools/communities in a
relatively limited period of time, say, 5 or 6 years.
To accommodate both of these principles at the same time, we use a four-level strategy of
dissemination, a kind of “train- the-trainer” model. The “Olweus Group against Bullying and
Antisocial Behaviour” at the HEMIL-centre at the University of Bergen, trains and supervises
specially selected instructor candidates who each train and supervise “key persons” from a number
of schools (ideally about five schools per instructor-candidate). These key persons are then
15
responsible for leading recurrent “staff discussion groups” at each participating school. The basic
structure of the model is shown in Figure 8.
Insert Figure 8 about here
The training of the instructor candidates consists of 10-11 whole-day assemblies distributed
over a period of some 16 months. In between the whole-day meetings the instructor candidates
receive ongoing consultation via telephone or email with members of my group. After having
successfully completed the training period, they will be assigned status as certified Olweus trainers.
(In implementing this “train-the trainer” model in the USA, some modifications have been made to
accommodate cultural differences and practical constraints. In particular, the number of whole-day
assemblies have been reduced to four or five, and the “Bullying Prevention Coordinating
Committees” at the individual schools have been accorded greater responsibility than in Norway.)
An important task for the trainer candidates is to hold a two-day training with special key
persons from each participating school (or in the USA, with members of the coordinating
committee; see Olweus & Limber, 1999). The trainer candidates are also involved in the
administration of the Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996; Solberg & Olweus, 2003) and in
interpreting and communicating the results to the individual school. The Questionnaire survey is
important vehicle for creating awareness and involvement among staff, students, and parents. In
addition, the key persons receive continuing supervision and assistance from their trainer
candidates.
Establishment of staff discussion groups at each participating school is an important tool for
effective dissemination and implementation of the program. These groups with up to 15 participants
meet regularly for approximately 90 minutes every other week under the leadership of the specially
trained key persons. The meetings are typically organized around important components or themes
of the program as described in Olweus’ Core Program against Bullying: A Teacher Handbooks
(Olweus, 2001b) and the book Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do (Olweus,
1993; Conductas de acoso y amenaza entre escolares,1998). The main goals of these meetings
are the following:
• to provide more detailed and comprehensive knowledge of the intervention program and its
various components
16
• to provide the participants with the possibility of testing, through role playing and in other
ways, ideas and practical solutions to various problem situations in a secure environment
• to stimulate fast(er) implementation of the various components of the program
• to share experiences and viewpoints with others in similar situations and to learn from
others' positive and negative experiences
• to create and maintain motivation and commitment
• to stimulate cooperation and coordination of program components and activities (to develop
and maintain a whole-school policy).
Although staff discussion groups may be perceived by some in the school society as rather
time/resource-consuming, the informal feedback we have received so far certainly suggests that these
meetings are seen as very valuable by most participants. In many ways, these meetings around the
program actually serve to stimulate organisational development of the school. A distinct advantage
here is that the major goal of this form of school development is directed towards the students: To
create a safe and positive learning environment.
Up to now, some 125 instructor candidates have finished or are in training, and more than 450
schools from all over Norway participate in the program. We perceive all of this as a breakthrough for
the systematic, long-term, and research-based work against bully/victim problems in school and hope
to see similar developments in other countries.
Factors of importance for good results
The practical work within this national initiative and the research associated with it – in
particular, the large-scale evaluations of the program that is has permitted – has given us very
valuable experiences. If I should try to summarise some of these experiences in a nutshell, I would
use the following overview diagram.
Insert Figure 9 about here
In order to secure good results in school-based anti-bullying work, we need adults - in
particular teachers and other school personnel and parents to some extent - who have at least a
certain degree of engagement or involvement and a reasonable level of awareness of the nature and
level of bully/victim problems in the particular school (through a careful survey, for example). But It is
17
not enough that adults are engaged and aware of the problems. They must also have a decent
knowledge of, and practical skills in, using intervention measures and efforts that research has shown
to be effective. To achieve this, a systematic enhancement of the competence of the school personnel
must take place. In addition, a good the implementation model is absolutely necessary. Even a good
program may fail, if the implementation model does not measure up with the quality of the program.
In summary, there are several important factors or dimensions that must be considered and
addressed in anti-bullying work but I am very confident that systematic work along these lines will
produce good and lasting outcome results.
18
References
Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., Hamnond, R.,
Modzeleski, W., Feucht, T., Potter, L., & the School-Associated Violent Deaths Study Group (2001).
School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1994-1999. Journal of the American Medical
Association, 286, 2695-2702.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression. Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Elliott, D. (1999). Editor’s introduction. In D. Olweus, & S. Limber (1999) Blueprints for violence
prevention: Bullying Prevention Program. Institute of Behavioral Science, University of
Colorado,.Boulder, USA.
Espelage, D.L., & Swearer, S. M, (2004). (Eds.). Bullying in American schools. Mahwah,
N.J.:Erlbaum.
Juvonen, J. & Graham, S. (2001). (Eds.), Peer harassment in school . New York: Guilford
Publications.
Maccoby, E.E. (1986). Social groupings in childhood: their relationship to prosocial and
antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In D. Olweus, J. Block & M. Radke-Yarrow (Eds.),
Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Olweus, D. (1973a). Hackkycklingar och översittare: Forskning om skolmobbning. Stockholm: Almqvist
& Wiksell.
Olweus, D. (1973b). Personality and aggression. I J.K. Cole, & D.D. Jensen (Eds.), Nebraska Symposium
on Motivation 1972. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Olweus, D. (1977). Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two short-term longitudinal studies
of ratings. Child Development, 48, 1301-1313.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, D.C.:
Hemisphere (Wiley).
Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A Review. Psychological Bulletin, 86,
852-875.
Olweus, D. (1980). Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adolescent boys: A
causal analysis. Developmental Psychology, 16, 644-660.
Olweus, D. (1986). Mobbning – vad vi vet och vad vi kan göra. Stockholm: Liber.
19
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishers. (Published in Spanish in 1998 as Conductas de acoso y amenaza entre escolares. Madrid:
Ediciones Morata.)
Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo. Bergen,
Norway: Research Centre for Health Promotion, University of Bergen.
Olweus, D. (2001a). Peer harassment. A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen, &
S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp.3-20). New York: Guilford Publications.
Olweus, D. ( 2001b) Olweus’ core program against bullying and antisocial behavior: A teacher
handbook. Research Centre for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center). Bergen, Norway.
Olweus, D. (2002). Mobbing I skolen: Nye data om omfang og forandring over tid. Manuscript.
Research Centre for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center). Bergen, Norway.
Olweus, D. (2004a). Bullying at school: Prevalence estimation, a useful evaluation design, and a new
national initiative in Norway. Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry Occasional Papers No.
23, pp. 5-17.
Olweus, D. (2004b). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Design and implementation issues and
a new national initiative in Norway (pp. 13-36). In P.K. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby (eds.), Bullying
in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press.
Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 11, 389-402.
Solberg, M. & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus
Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29. 239-268.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999) Blueprints for violence prevention: Bullying Prevention Program.
Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado,.Boulder, USA.
Rapport 2000. (2000). Vurdering av program og tiltak for å redusere problematferd og utvikle
sosial kompetanse. (Evaluation of programs and measures to reduce problem behaviour and develop
social competence.) Oslo, Norway: Kirke-, undervisnings-, og forskningsdepartementet.
Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (1999). (Eds.)
The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. London: Routledge.
Smith, P.K., Pepler, D., and Rigby, K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions
20
be? Cambridge University Press.
Footnote
1
The intervention “package” consists of the book Bullying at school - what we know and what we
can do (Olweus, 1993, also in Spanish, 1998), Olweus’ core program against bullying and
antisocial behavior: A teacher handbook (Olweus, 2001b), the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) with accompanying PC-program, and a video cassette on bullying
(Olweus & Limber, 1999). More information about the intervention program and ordering of
materials can be obtained from Olweus@online.no.
21
FIGURE 1.
Bullying Violence
Bullying with physical (violent) means
Aggression
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I N S T B UL L Y I N G
22
FIGURE 2.
PERCENTAGE VICTIMIZED
STUDENTS (N=10 800)
0
5
10
15
20
Girls 18 16,3 14,4 10,6 6,7 9,5 4,6
Boys 20,2 17,6 12,7 12,5 10,3 9,9 6
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grades 4 - 7 (Boys + Girls) = 15,2% Grades 8-10 (Boys + Girls) = 8,0%
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
23
FIGURE 3.
PERCENTAGE BULLYING
STUDENTS (N= 10 800)
0
5
10
15
20
Girls 4,2 3,5 3,5 2,4 3,9 6,3 4,5
Boys 7,8 9,7 7,9 7,4 7,8 11,4 10,3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grades 4-7 (Boys + Girls)= 5,8% Grades 8-10 (Boys + Girls)= 7,4%
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
24
FIGURE 4.
THE BULLYING CIRCLE
:
Students’ modes of reaction/roles in
an acute bullying situation
Take an active part but
do not start the bullying
Start the bullying and
take an active part
Support the bullying but do
not take an active part
Like the bullying but do not
display open support
Watch what happens; ”is none
of my business”; don’t take a
stand
Dislike the bullying
and help or try to help
Dislike the bullying and
think they ought to help
(but don’t do it)
The one who
is exposed,
the victim
The bully/
bullies
Follower
Henchman
Supporter, passive
bully/bullies
Passive supporter,
possible bully
Disengaged onlooker
Possible
defender
Defender of
the victim
B
C
D
E
A
Y
G
F
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
25
FIGURE 5.
OVERVIEW OF THE OLWEUS BULLYING
PREVENTION PROGRAM (i)
GENERAL PREREQUISITES
• AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT ON THE
PART OF ADULTS
MEASURES AT THE SCHOOL LEVEL
• QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY
• SCHOOL CONFERENCE DAY
• EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION DURING RECESS
AND LUNCH TIMES
• STAFF DISCUSSION GROUPS
• FORMATION OF COORDINATING GROUP
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
MEASURES AT THE CLASSROOM LEVEL
• CLASSROOM RULES AGAINST BULLYING
• CLASSROOM MEETINGS WITH STUDENTS
• MEETINGS WITH PARENTS OF THE CLASS
MEASURES AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL
• SERIOUS TALKS WITH BULLIES AND VICTIMS
• SERIOUS TALKS WITH PARENTS OF INVOLVED
STUDENTS
• DEVELOPMENT OF INDIVIDUAL INTERVENTION PLANS
26
FIGURE 6.
PERCENTAGE BULLIED STUDENTS
IN GRADES 4-7
Data from 3 cohorts of schools which began implementing the Olweus BP Program in
2001-2003 (number of students = 21 000).
13,3 15 14,2
8,6 10,2 9,4
0
5
10
15
20
Girls Boys Combined
%
•Percentage
bullied students
reduced by 34% in one year
•from 14,2% to 9,4%
girls
–reduction by 35%
•from 13,3% to 8,6%
boys
–reduction by 32%
•from 15% to 10,2%
Left bars = before intervention
Right bars = after 8 months
with the Olweus BP Program
27
FIGURE 7.
PERCENTAGE BULLYING STUDENTS
IN GRADES 4-7
Data from 3 cohorts of schools which began implementing the Olweus BP Program in
2001-2003 (number of students = 21 000).
•Percentage bullying
students reduced by 44% in
one year
–from 5,5% to 3,1%
–girls
•reduction by 48%
–from 3,3% to 1,7%
–boys
•reduction by 42%
–from 7,6% to 4,4%
Left bars = before intervention
Right bars = after 8 months
with the Olweus BP Program
3,3
7,6
5,5
1,7
4,4 3,1
0
5
10
Girls Boys Combined
%
OLWEUS - GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
28
FIGURE 8.
Training of instructors
The Oslo class
Instructor #1
School 1
3-5 key staff
Teacher
discussion group
(all teaching staff)
.....School 5
3-5 key staff
....Instructor #15
The Bergen class The Narvik class
The Olweus-group
HEMIL Centre
TRAINING OF INSTRUCTORS
OLWEUS - GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
29
FIGURE 9.
FACTORS OF KEY IMPORTANCE
AWARENESS
INVOLVEMENT
KNOWLEDGE OF
RESEARCH-BASED
COUNTERMEASURES
POSITIVE
RESULTS
COMPETENCE
ENHANCING
ACTIVITIES
EFFECTIVE IM-
PLEMENTATION
OLWEUS GR OU P
AGA I NS T B U L L YI N G
.
