Content uploaded by Shelley E Beatty
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shelley E Beatty on May 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjer20
Download by: [82.16.134.6] Date: 17 November 2016, At: 06:41
The Journal of Educational Research
ISSN: 0022-0671 (Print) 1940-0675 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20
A group randomized controlled trial evaluating
parent involvement in whole-school actions to
reduce bullying
Donna Cross, Leanne Lester, Natasha Pearce, Amy Barnes & Shelley Beatty
To cite this article: Donna Cross, Leanne Lester, Natasha Pearce, Amy Barnes & Shelley
Beatty (2016): A group randomized controlled trial evaluating parent involvement in
whole-school actions to reduce bullying, The Journal of Educational Research, DOI:
10.1080/00220671.2016.1246409
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1246409
Published online: 14 Nov 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 4
View related articles
View Crossmark data
A group randomized controlled trial evaluating parent involvement in whole-school
actions to reduce bullying
Donna Cross
a
,
b
, Leanne Lester
c
, Natasha Pearce
a
, Amy Barnes
a
, and Shelley Beatty
b
a
Telethon Kids Institute, the University of Western Australia, West Perth, Australia;
b
School of Exercise, Biomedical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan
University, Joondalup, Australia;
c
Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, the University of Western Australia, West Perth, Australia
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 31 March 2016
Revised 23 September 2016
Accepted 25 September 2016
ABSTRACT
Parents can significantly affect children’s peer relationships, including their involvement in bullying. The
authors developed and evaluated ways to enhance parents’knowledge, self-efficacy, attitudes, and skills
related to parent–child communication about bullying. The 3-year Friendly Schools Friendly Families
whole-school intervention included a family component, which provided training and resources to
support school teams to engage families in awareness-raising and skill-building activities. Over 3,200
parents of the Grade 2, 4, and 6 cohorts were recruited. For the Grade 2 and 4 cohorts at both 10 and 22
months postintervention, the family component increased parents’self-efficacy to talk about bullying with
their children and their frequency of doing so. Grade 4 parents reported more provictim attitudes at 22
months. No differences were found for the Grade 6 cohort. These data suggest a whole-school capacity-
building intervention in early and middle childhood can improve the likelihood and frequency of positive
parent–child communication about bullying.
KEYWORDS
Bullying prevention;
longitudinal; parents;
randomized controlled trial;
whole-school interventions
School bullying is of significant concern to children, parents,
schools and communities, with serious and potentially long-
term impacts on academic achievement, emotional well-being,
and social development. Bullying can be defined as aggressive
and repeated behaviors intended to cause harm to a target,
who—due to a real or perceived power imbalance—is often
unable to defend themselves or stop these behaviors from
occurring (Hemphill, Heerde, & Gomo, 2014). These behaviors
commonly arise in school peer groups, and can take several
forms including face-to-face verbal or physical bullying, covert
(i.e., hidden) behaviors such as spreading rumors or social
exclusion, and cyberbullying (i.e., via Internet or mobile phone;
Cross et al., 2009; Salmivalli, 2010).
In Australia, over one quarter (27%) of students 8–14 years
old report being bullied, and 9% report bullying others, every
few weeks or more often (Cross et al., 2009). Bullying behaviors
tend to become more prevalent as age increases, peaking
around 10–11 years old and again at transition into secondary
schools (Cross et al., 2009).
Although comparisons of bullying prevalence can be unreli-
able due to methodological issues (e.g., Hemphill et al., 2014),
Australian estimates tend to be similar to or slightly higher
than international estimates. In New Zealand 13% of children
8–13 years old were classified as those who bullied others, while
15% reported being victimized (Raskauskas, Gregory, Harvey,
Rifshana, & Evans, 2010). European and American research
demonstrates considerable variation, with bullying victimiza-
tion ranging from 5% to 40% of children (Craig et al., 2009;
Jansen et al., 2012; Vaillancourt et al., 2010). Nonetheless, bul-
lying behaviors affect a considerable proportion of children,
including those children who are not directly involved but who
may witness and inadvertently reinforce these negative
behaviors.
It is not only the victims of bullying behavior who experi-
ence negative consequences. Bystanders, those who are victim-
ized, and those who target others may each experience
significant harms as a result of school bullying. Those victim-
ized are at increased risk of experiencing negative emotional
and psychosomatic symptoms (Due et al., 2005; Gini & Pozzoli,
2013; Kowalski & Limber, 2013), as well as poorer social adjust-
ment and academic outcomes (Arseneault et al., 2006; Kowalski
& Limber, 2013). Children who target others or who witness
bullying behaviors also report increased psychosomatic symp-
toms, and internalizing or externalizing problems (Arseneault
et al., 2006; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Nishina & Juvonen, 2005).
Importantly, there appear to be long-term behavioral, social,
and psychological consequences for children involved in bully-
ing, whether as a target or an aggressor (Fergusson, Boden, &
Horwood, 2013; Ttofi, Farrington, L€
osel, & Loeber, 2011;
Wolke, Copeland, Angold, & Costello, 2013).
The most effective interventions to reduce harms associated
with school bullying have typically involved multilevel strate-
gies, targeting all members of the school community including
students, their parents and families, teachers and other school
staff (Ttofi& Farrington, 2009; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007).
Despite widespread acknowledgement of the contribution the
school environment makes to preventing or promoting antiso-
cial student behaviors, parents can play a key role in the devel-
opment of children’s social skills, emotional regulation, and
peer relationships (for a review, see Cross & Barnes, 2014).
CONTACT Donna Cross donna.cross@telethonkids.org.au Telethon Kids Institute, PO Box 855, West Perth, Western Australia 6782, Australia.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1246409
According to family systems theory, the family is a dynamic,
interactive, interdependent system with all members contribut-
ing to the patterns of behavior that emerge within it, and there-
fore students must be considered in the context of their family
(Bavelas & Segal, 1982), particularly when studying issues relat-
ing to strategies for dealing with conflict, stress, and tensions
between autonomy and connectedness (Cross & Barnes, 2014;
Fingerman & Bermann, 2000).
Several studies have demonstrated an association between
children’s aggressive behavior and problematic family function-
ing (for a review, see Duncan, 2004). For example, children and
adolescents who engage in bullying appear to be more likely to
have parents with authoritarian parenting styles (Georgiou &
Stavrinides, 2013) or ineffective disciplinary approaches
(Snyder, Cramer, Afrank, & Patterson, 2005), report conflict or
poor communication with their parents (Georgiou & Stavri-
nides, 2013; Spriggs, Iannotti, Nansel, & Haynie, 2007), and
have family environments characterized by the use of aggres-
sion to solve problems (Roberts & Morotti, 2000). Conversely,
children of overly protective or permissive parents (Georgiou,
2008; Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2013) are at increased risk of vic-
timization. Such associations can be explained by theories of
social learning (Bandura, 1986), in which children’s attitudes
and behaviors are learned from or reinforced by parents, and
by the family systems theory (e.g., Bavelas & Segal, 1982; Cross
& Barnes, 2014), which emphasizes the development of shared
patterns of behavior and coping mechanisms in family environ-
ments that are then applied to other (e.g., peer) contexts.
In contrast, parental factors such as warmth, responsiveness,
support and supervision, and high-quality parent–child com-
munication appear to have a protective effect, with children
being less likely to report victimization and more likely to dem-
onstrate emotional resilience in the event of bullying experien-
ces (Bowes, Maughan, Caspi, Moffitt, & Arseneault, 2010;
Georgiou, 2008; Lereya, Samara, & Wolke, 2013). Accordingly,
studies have typically recommended that bullying prevention
programs ensure the participation of parents and families (e.g.,
Healy & Sanders, 2014; Lereya et al., 2013).
Similar recommendations have emerged from reviews of the
most effective elements of school-based bullying interventions,
which characterize parents as significant contributors to the
success of such efforts. For example, the strategies most associ-
ated with reductions in bullying in reviews by Ttofiand Far-
rington (2009,2011) included training for parents or meetings
with parents, and providing information to parents, to assist
them in supporting their children to deal with bullying behav-
iors. Similarly, a meta-analysis conducted by Jim
enez Barbero
et al. (2012) concluded that bullying prevention programs were
more likely to be effective when parents as well as teachers and
students were involved.
Nevertheless, few school-based interventions have included
significant components involving parents, and most have been
limited by nonrandomized selection of schools, by parent and
student attrition, or by the use of methodologies other than
randomized controlled trials. The Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program, which includes contact with and informational mate-
rials for parents, appears to be most successful in its point of
origin—Bergen, Norway—with mixed results elsewhere (Cross
et al., 2011; Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). The
KiVA Antibullying Program in Finland enhances parental
understanding of bullying behavior through written guides and
information nights, and has demonstrated success in reducing
bullying among children and adolescents (Salmivalli, Kaukiai-
nen, & Voeten, 2005). However, outcomes have varied by
school and even by classroom, perhaps due to differing levels of
implementation (K€
arn€
a et al., 2011), and these studies utilized
time-lag comparisons, rather than randomized control trials,
which would allow direct comparison between groups of stu-
dents who did and did not receive the intervention. The extent
to which the successful outcomes of these interventions could
be generalized to Australian primary school children and their
families is also unclear.
One Australian study that focused on the role of parents in
reducing children’s experiences of bullying victimization
involved a randomized control trial utilizing a targeted
(vs. universal) cognitive-behavioral parenting program, which
also aimed to develop children’s social and emotional skills
(Healy & Sanders, 2014). This parenting program assisted
parents (nD111) of victimized children to work with schools
to support their children’s social development and interactions
with peers. The program resulted in significant decreases in
these children’s victimization experiences, internalizing symp-
toms and aggression, with increases in their positive attitudes
to school and peers. These findings suggest that targeted
school-based interventions with strategies to strengthen part-
nerships between parents could be effective in reducing harms
from bullying. However, the targeted study involved only chil-
dren who were chronically bullied (Healy & Sanders, 2014),
and it is unclear if a more universal approach to enhancing par-
ent capacity to help their children prevent harm from bullying
could also be effective.
Here we describe the family component of a three-year
group randomized control trial of a comprehensive whole-
school intervention called Friendly Schools, Friendly Families
(FSFF), which involved over 3,000 parents/carers (study
described in full in Cross et al., 2012; for further discussion of
the need for a family component, see Cross & Barnes, 2014).
The FSFF intervention builds on a previously tested whole-
school intervention that had a limited focus on families (Cross
et al., 2011). According to family systems theory, the dynamics
and influences within a family unit can have a significant
impact on children’s behavior in other settings (Christian,
2006). Negative patterns of behavior and maladaptive coping
skills, learned and reinforced at home, may extend into peer
relationships and increase the likelihood of bullying involve-
ment (for review, see Cross & Barnes, 2014).
Thus, in the present study we developed and evaluated a
family component by addressing students’bullying behavior in
the context of attitudes, expectations, and behavioral patterns
that might be learned or reinforced at home, thereby strength-
ening schools’capacity to engage parents in actions to reduce
bullying. In the project we aimed to determine the extent to
which a universal parent intervention could encourage parents
to engage more actively in conversations with their children
about bullying, including how to respond as a witness or a tar-
get if bullying occurred.
Using a conceptual framework (see Figure 1) developed by
earlier formative and intervention research (Cross, Pintabona,
2D. CROSS ET AL.
Hall, Hamilton, & Erceg, 2004; Cross et al., 2011), we hypothe-
sized that parents/adult carers of second-, fourth-, and sixth-
grade students who received a high dose of the universal FSFF
whole-school and enhanced family intervention would have
increased bullying-related knowledge, increased self-efficacy to
help their children, more positive attitudes to bullying, and be
more able and willing to discuss bullying and help their child
respond to bullying, than would parents/carers who received
the moderate- or low-dose universal intervention (with fewer
family-level activities).
Methods
This prospective group-randomized controlled trial, conducted
in Perth, Western Australia, in 2002–2004, followed three
differently-aged student cohorts recruited from 20 randomly-
selected government primary schools (Cross et al., 2011;Crosset
al., 2012). In Western Australia, primary schools typically accom-
modate students 4–12 years old (kindergarten to Grade 6), and
within the Perth metropolitan area, there are approximately 305
government primary schools and 165 nongovernment schools.
At baseline, three cohorts of students, their teachers and
parents/carers (henceforth parents) were eligible to participate
in the study. The students were 6–7 years old (Grade 2 cohort),
8–9 years old (Grade 4 cohort), and 10–11 years old (Grade 6
cohort). The parents of each of these student cohorts are the
focus of this study.
To control for the design effects of clustering and attrition,
21 schools were randomly selected from the pool of all govern-
ment primary schools in the Perth metropolitan area (nD305
schools). To increase equivalence between intervention and
*
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the friendly schools friendly families project.
SES Dsocioeconomic status; Cross et al., 2012.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 3
comparison schools prior to randomization, schools were strat-
ified by socioeconomic status (low, moderate, and high socio-
economic status groups using terciles from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics Socioeconomic Index for Areas: Scale of
Disadvantage; McLennan, 1998) and their size according to the
total number of students enrolled in the school (using a median
split with larger schools having >451 total students and
smaller schools 451 total students). Twenty schools partici-
pated in the study and were randomly assigned to one of three
treatment conditions, such that seven would receive high levels
of intervention, six would receive medium levels of interven-
tion, and the remaining seven schools acted as a comparison or
low-dose condition (i.e., using standard, government health
education curricula and bullying policy and practice).
The FSFF study recruited parents using informed passive
consent procedures, and parents were free to withdraw them-
selves or their child from the study at any time. The research
protocol and school, student and parent consent procedures
were approved by the Curtin University Human Research
Ethics Committee. Recruited schools and families were advised
they would receive an updated version of the intervention
resources at the end of the study, should these prove to be
effective.
The student, parent and staff cohorts were then exposed to
the high-, moderate- or low-dose versions of the whole-school
intervention and tracked for three years, until the three cohorts
of students were in Grades 4, 6, and 8 (approximately 9, 11,
and 13 years old), respectively (Table 1; Cross et al., 2011; Cross
et al., 2012).
This article describes the data collected from parents at base-
line and during the 10- and 22-month posttests.
Measures
To understand more fully the parents’bullying-related knowl-
edge, attitudes, self-efficacy when talking with their children,
and communication behaviors, two questionnaires were devel-
oped for each family. A long questionnaire was given to the
parent the student spoke with the most about social/bullying
issues (as identified by the student), and a shortened version
was given to another parent. In this article we describe only the
parent data from the long questionnaire.
A range of strategies was implemented to maximize parent
participation, including: recruiting parents through their child’s
school, having students personalize all correspondence with
their parents, encouraging students to talk with their parents
about completing the questionnaire, providing an envelope for
parents to seal their questionnaires for return to the research
team, and providing small class-based incentives (e.g., stickers)
for returned questionnaires (completed or not completed). Stu-
dents were asked to give the long questionnaire to the parent
who talked with them the most about bullying.
To ensure the same parent completed the questionnaire at
each posttest, several questions were used to remind parents
who had completed the questionnaire in previous years. To
ensure all completed parent questionnaires were treated as con-
fidential and used for research purposes only, the project
research staff collected all the parent-sealed envelopes from
each school. Hence, as parents were advised, school staff were
not given an opportunity to see individual parent responses.
Forty-five percent (nD1,444) of the original cohort of parents
completed surveys at baseline, posttest 1, and posttest 2.
Study variables
The self-reported variables collected from parents in this
study measured their knowledge about childhood bullying
behavior, their self-efficacy to impart bullying-related
knowledge when talking with their child, their attitudes to
bullying, the time they spent communicating with their
child about bullying, their perception of their own ability in
helping their child respond to bullying, and their under-
standing of the priority their child’s school placed on bully-
ing prevention (see Appendix). All questionnaire items were
reviewed for face and content validity by an expert panel of
educators, parent educators, bullying prevention researchers,
psychologists, and adult learning specialists.
Parents’knowledge about bullying
To assess parents’knowledge about the behaviors that consti-
tute physical, verbal, and relational bullying, a nine-item test
adapted from Boulton and Underwood (1992) was used. A
knowledge score was calculated by summing the number of
correct items (minimum D0, maximum D9).
Parents’self-efficacy to talk with their child about bullying
To assess parents’self-efficacy regarding talking with their
child, six items asked whether they felt they had enough
knowledge to discuss the following bullying issues with their
child: What bullying is; what to do if they are being bullied;
why they should not bully others; what to do if they see
others being bullied; who they can talk to if they are
being bullied; and how to make friends. A factor analysis
performed on the self-efficacy measure confirmed its
unidimensionality (comparative fitindex(CFI)>0.9,
Table 1. Friendly Schools Friendly Families study design.
Condition
Baseline
Grades 2, 4, 6
(March 2002)
Intervention
(2002)
Posttest 1
Grades 2, 4, 6
(November 2002)
Intervention
(2003)
Posttest 2
Grades 3, 5, 7
(October 2003)
School maintenance
of intervention
Follow-up
Grades 4, 6
(October 2004)
a
High O1 X1 O2 X2 O3 X6 O4
Moderate O1 X3 O2 X4 O3 X7 O4
Low O1 X5 O2 X5 O3 X1,2 O4
Note. O
1–4
Ddata collection; X
1,2
Dhigh intervention (whole-school, classroom, individual plus high intensity family and capacity building support for implementation);
X
3,4
Dmoderate intervention (whole-school, classroom, individual plus less intense family and capacity building support for implementation); X
5
Dlow intervention
(standard school program, brief whole-school intervention and no capacity building support or family component).
a
The baseline Grade 6 cohort had moved to second-
ary school prior to Posttest 3 and hence was not assessed.
4D. CROSS ET AL.
standardized root mean square residual (SMR) <0.10). A
self-efficacy score was calculated by adding the number of
items where parents indicated they had sufficient knowledge
(minimum D0, maximum D6).
Parents’attitudes to bullying behavior
To assess parents’positive and negative attitudes toward bully-
ing behavior, a 10-item scale adapted from the Rigby and Slee
(1991) Provictim scale was used. Items included “It makes me
angry when students are bullied,”“Bullying toughens students
up,”and “Students who are bullied usually deserve what they
get.”Parents responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree)to5(strongly agree). A positive and
negative attitude score was calculated at each data collection
point for each parent by averaging the six positive attitude
items and the four negative attitude items. Psychometric testing
by Rigby and Slee (1991) indicates the scale has adequate reli-
ability and discriminant validity, though in this study internal
consistency for positive attitudes (Cronbach’saD.56) and neg-
ative attitudes (Cronbach’saD.65) was found to be low.
Frequency of parent–child communication about bullying
The number of times a parent discussed bullying with their
child was also measured using a six-item categorical index.
The items asked parents how often they have talked with
their children about: what bullying is; what to do if they are
being bullied; why they should not bully others; what to do if
they see others being bullied; who they can talk to if they are
being bullied; and how to make friends. Parents responded
on a 5-point scale with responses including 1 (can’tremem-
ber how often)2(never), 3 (1–2times), 4 (3–5times), and
5(more than five times). A score was calculated at each data
collection point for each parent by averaging the six items,
with a higher score reflecting a greater frequency of discus-
sion (average aD.93).
Parents’perception of their ability to help their child respond
to bullying
A six-item categorical index was used to measure parents’per-
ception of their ability to help their child respond to bullying.
The items included: Encouraging their child to help others;
encouraging their child to report bullying to adults; discourag-
ing their child from bullying others, influencing how their child
responds to being bullied, helping their child respond to bully-
ing so it doesn’t happen again, and helping their child cope
with bullying more than school can. Parents responded on a
5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (don’t know)to5
(a lot). A score was calculated at each time point for each par-
ent by averaging the six items, with a higher score reflecting
greater perceptions of skills to make a difference in the reduc-
tion of bullying (average aD.73).
Parents’perception that bullying is a priority at their child’s
school
Parents were also asked whether they believed bullying was a
priority at their child’s school. Parents responded on a 4-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (don’t know)to4(high
priority).
Intervention
As shown in Table 2, both the FSFF high- and moderate-dose
study conditions comprised four levels of intervention (whole
school, classroom, family, and individual), whereas the low-
dose study condition involved usual school–parent contact and
whole-school level resources only (Cross et al., 2011; Cross et
al., 2012). The major difference between the moderate- and
high-dose intervention groups was the level of family interven-
tion. The high-dose intervention schools received (a) an addi-
tional 3-hr project team training in each study year to increase
their capacity to engage parents and (b) a series of targeted
awareness raising and skill building home activities for parents
and their families. No additional family activities (beyond
schools’usual practice) were provided to low-dose study
schools.
Theories of social learning and family systems were used to
guide the development of the content and strategies that
formed the family component of the FSFF whole-school inter-
vention (for further discussion, see Bandura, 1986; Cross &
Barnes, 2014). The intervention was designed to systematically
target parenting factors, at high, moderate, and low levels, iden-
tified as being protective of bullying behavior (and other prob-
lem behaviors) including parent modeling, parenting style,
parent bullying attitudes and beliefs, normative standards about
bullying, family management techniques, connectedness and
cohesion, and—particularly—parent–child communication
about bullying.
The family-level activities therefore worked in partner-
ship with parents by building their awareness, attitudes and
self-efficacy to role model, talk with and help their children
to develop social competence and to prevent or respond to
bullying. These activities also aimed to encourage school
and parent communication, and parents’engagement with
the school to reduce student bullying. The activities
included six communication sheets containing self-help
information and activities designed to stimulate parents’
discussions with their child about bullying-related issues.
The activities were linked to the classroom curriculum and,
therefore, could be set as home-based activities by the
teacher and delivered home to parents by the students.
Key FSFF messages to parents were delivered in a variety
of ways to maximize their exposure to the information. For
high-dose parents, these included conducting family events
such as a weekend family fun day at the school; school
newsletter items; engaging with the school’s parents’and
friends’committees; involving parents in developing and
disseminating the school’s bullying policy; and motivating
parents to be involved through student communication
sheets, where students completed tasks at home with their
family (e.g., family interviews); and, last, via student
performance.
Data analysis
SPSS version 22 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and Stata version 13
(StataCorp, College Station, TX) were used to analyze the data.
Separate multilevel models, which took into account the clus-
tered nature of the data, were used to determine the level of
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 5
intervention as a predictor of parents’self-efficacy, skills, atti-
tudes, and knowledge for each grade cohort. All models took
into account parents’perceptions of their engagement with
school, their involvement in school policy development, and the
effectiveness of current school strategies to counteract and deal
with bullying behaviors. Effect sizes representing the differences
in high-, moderate-, and low-dose groups at different time points
were calculated for significant results using Cohen’sd.
Results
A total of 3,211 parents completed a survey at baseline
(Table 3). Eighty-three percent of the long questionnaire
respondents were mothers, 14% were fathers, and the remain-
der were stepparents and guardians. A significantly higher pro-
portion of parents in the high-dose (19%) and moderate-dose
(17%) intervention groups had a university education
compared to parents in the low-dose (11%) intervention group,
x
2
(8, N= 3,103) D45.763, p<.001. Fifty-one percent of the
respondents had male children.
Baseline data were collected from 1,077 Grade 2 parents,
1094 Grade 4 parents and 1,040 Grade 6 parents. Two thirds
(nD2,152) of these parents responded at posttest 1 (10
months), and 56% (nD1,784) at posttest 2 (22 months).
Forty-five percent (nD1,444) of the original cohort of parents
completed surveys at baseline, posttest 1 and posttest 2. No sig-
nificant difference was found between parents who completed
all surveys, and those who did not, with respect to demographic
variables (e.g., education levels and their relationship to their
child), which have previously impacted survey responses. More
low-dose and high-dose intervention parents were lost to fol-
low-up at posttest 2 than moderate-dose intervention parents
(see Table 3). Missing data were due to nonresponse and parent
movement to other schools.
All available data were included in the analyses.
Therewerenosignificant differences at baseline between the
three intervention dose groups for parent-reported self-efficacy,
knowledge, or attitudes toward bullying in Grades 2, 4, or 6 (all
Table 2. Summary of high, moderate, and low intervention components.
Intervention level High intervention Moderate intervention Low intervention
Whole-school level Project team capacity building
6 hr/year whole-school implementation
training
Ongoing staff support
Audit of school implementation capacity
and feedback
Whole-school implementation manual
and tools
Audit, development, implementation, and
monitoring of:
- Policy
- Ethos (social environment)
- Physical environment
- Management of bullying incidents
Project team capacity building
6 hr/year whole-school implementation
training
Ongoing staff support
Audit of school implementation capacity
and feedback
Whole-school implementation manual
and tools
Audit, development, implementation,
and monitoring of:
- Policy
- Ethos (social environment)
- Physical environment
- Management of bullying incidents
Whole-school manual describing
general actions schools could
take to reduce bullying
Classroom level Teacher training (2 hr/year)
Curriculum—at least two 60-min activities
taught each year
Teacher training (2 hr/year)
Curriculum—at least two 60 min
activities taught each year
Standard WA curriculum—
(<2 hr/year)
Family level Awareness raising (25 newsletter items, 25-
page parent booklet, five scripted
assembly items, six songs, and referral
information)
3 hr/year project team parent
engagement training
Two-hour parent workshop
Four six-page parent–child
communication sheets (2002)
Six classroom-home activities (2003)
Awareness raising (25 newsletter items) Standard parent–school contact
Individual level Restorative techniques for management of
bullying
3 hr training for school behavior
management staff (2003)
Links encouraged with school
psychologists and other relevant
professionals
Restorative techniques for management
of bullying
3 hr training for school behavior
management staff (2003)
Links encouraged with school
psychologists and other relevant
professionals
Standard state behavior
management practice
Table 3. Number of participating parents by time point, intervention group and
child’s grade.
Time
point
High
intervention
Moderate
intervention
Low
intervention Total
Baseline
Grade 2 375 313 389 1,077
Grade 4 360 324 410 1,094
Grade 6 367 279 394 1,040
Total 1,102 916 1193 3,211
Posttest 1
Grade 2 229 212 255 696
Grade 4 234 234 291 759
Grade 6 247 190 260 697
Total 710 636 806 2,152
Posttest 2
Grade 2 198 198 212 608
Grade 4 190 217 241 648
Grade 6 183 176 169 528
Total 571 591 622 1,784
6D. CROSS ET AL.
p>.05). At baseline, parents of Grade 2 students in the low-
dose intervention group reported significantly higher perceptions
of the priority of bullying within their child’s school, compared
to parents in the high-dose intervention group (pD.040).
At posttest 1, high-dose intervention parents of Grade 2 stu-
dents more frequently discussed bullying with their children
than moderate-dose (p<.001, dD.36) and low-dose (p<
.001, dD.38) intervention parents, and high-dose intervention
parents of Grade 4 students more frequently discussed bullying
with their children than low-dose (pD.011, dD.21) interven-
tion parents (Table 4). At posttest 2, high-dose intervention
parents of Grade 2 students discussed bullying with their chil-
dren more frequently than low-dose (pD.004, dD.32) inter-
vention parents.
At posttest 1, high-dose intervention parents of Grade 4 stu-
dents reported greater self-efficacy discussing bullying with
their children than moderate-dose (pD.042, dD.10) interven-
tion parents, and less negative attitudes toward bullying at post-
test 2 than moderate-dose (pD.040, dD.13) and low-dose
(pD.030, dD.22) intervention parents (Table 5 and 6).
Intervention implementation
For all Grade cohorts (Grades 2, 4, and 6), a significantly higher
proportion of parents in the high-dose (86%) and moderate-
dose (87%) intervention groups recalled seeing newsletter items
compared to parents in the low-dose intervention group, who
may have received newsletter items as part of their school’susual
Table 4. Level of intervention as a predictor of parent perception of skills by time, intervention group, and grade level.
Baseline Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Skills b(SE)pb(SE)pb(SE)p
Are able to help their child respond to bullying
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 .05 (.05) .273 –.03 (.05) .510 .01 (.05) .823
Grade 4 .07 (.04) .089 .04 (.05) .375 .03 (.05) .508
Grade 6 –.01 (.04) .850 –.01 (.05) .965 –.07 (.05) .202
Intervention: low
Grade 2 .01 (.04) .900 –.05 (.04) .240 –.07 (.05) .173
Grade 4 .02 (.04) .636 .05 (.05) .260 .01 (.05) .928
Grade 6 .04 (.04) .342 –.01 (.04) .826 –.02 (.05) .749
Frequency of discussing bullying with child
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 –.02 (.09) .870 –.34 (.08) <.001
–.08 (.08) .352
Grade 4 –.02 (.07) .805 –.16 (.08) .051 .05 (.09) .601
Grade 6 .13 (.08) .102 –.02 (.08) .856 –.11 (.13) .371
Intervention: low
Grade 2 –.08 (.09) .369 –.33 (.08) <.001
–.24 (.08) .004
Grade 4 –.01 (.06) .950 –.20 (.08) .011
–.04 (.09) .665
Grade 6 –.01 (.07) .996 –.13 (.08) .097 –.15 (.13) .241
Note. All models take into account engagement, policy involvement, and effectiveness of strategies and clustered nature of the data. Reference category is high
intervention.
p<.05;
p<.001.
Table 5. Level of intervention as a predictor of bullying knowledge score and self-efficacy in talking to child by time, intervention group and grade level.
Baseline Post 1 Post 2
Knowledge b(SE)pb(SE)pb(SE)p
Bullying knowledge score
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 .10 (.12) .371 –.12 (.11) .263 –.01 (.07) .988
Grade 4 .16 (.13) .237 –.14 (.12) .236 –.05 (.08) .513
Grade 6 .05 (.15) .760 .08 (.11) .497 –.05 (.05) .346
Intervention: low
Grade 2 .14 (.11) .195 –.09 (.10) .413 .10 (.07) .829
Grade 4 .04 (.13) .735 –.22 (.11) .049 –.06 (.07) .396
Grade 6 .03 (.14) .809 –.02 (.10) .853 –.01 (.06) .801
Self-efficacy in talking to child about bullying
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 –.08 (.15) .618 –.33 (.17) .050 –.01 (.15) .976
Grade 4 –.24 (.14) .079 –.33 (.16) .042
–.16 (.15) .304
Grade 6 .03 (.16) .848 –.09 (.17) .624 –.19 (.17) .254
Intervention: low
Grade 2 –.13 (.14) .376 –.29 (.16) .065 –.21 (.15) .164
Grade 4 –.08 (.13) .525 –.12 (.15) .425 –.17 (.15) .267
Grade 6 –.08 (.15) .597 –.26 (.16) .104 –.22 (.17) .187
Note. All models take into account engagement, policy involvement, and effectiveness of strategies and clustered nature of the data. Reference category is high
intervention.
p<.05.
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 7
care (60%), x
2
(4, ND2,320) D210.802, p<.001. The majority
of high-dose (71%) and moderate-dose (70%) intervention
parents found the newsletter items helpful. Eighty-four percent
of parents in the high-dose intervention group recalled receiving
the home activity sheets and 78% found these sheets helpful.
The majority of the high-dose intervention parents reported
the home resources increased their knowledge, increased their
confidence to talk about bullying, improved their skills to dis-
cuss bullying and improved their understanding of their child’s
school’s response (Table 7), whereas the majority of the moder-
ate-dose intervention parents reported only an increased
knowledge and an improved understanding of school response.
Around a quarter of high-dose intervention parents reported a
change in attitudes toward bullying or an improvement in their
own behavior.
Fifty-three percent of the high-dose intervention parents
recalled receiving at least one of the six home activity sheets
specifically. Of these, 71% of parents read at least one sheet
and talked about it with their child. The majority of high-dose
intervention parents (73%) reported the home activity sheets
increased their child’s awareness of how to respond to bullying
at school, while a further 14% reported their child was already
aware, 6% were unsure, and 6% reported little or no change in
awareness.
Discussion
The FSFF study recognized that families are central to under-
standing students’bullying behavior patterns, particularly fam-
ily attitudes, expectations and perspectives (Cross & Barnes,
2014; Duncan, 2004; Georgiou, 2008; Georgiou & Stavrinides,
2013; Lereya et al., 2013). The project focused on the behavior
patterns that may emerge from a family, and how these could
be enhanced or modified by increasing parents’knowledge,
understandings, attitudes, skills, and behaviors in relation to
their children’s experiences of bullying as a bystander, target,
or perpetrator.
Given the research suggesting that parental discomfort when
communicating with their children about problems is associ-
ated with adolescents becoming involved in bullying (Spriggs et
al., 2007), a priority in this study was to enhance parents’self-
efficacy to communicate with their children about bullying and
also to enable them to communicate more effectively and more
often. Accordingly, an important change observed in this study
was parents’increased self-efficacy and frequency of communi-
cation with their children about bullying, among the high-dose
intervention parents of the Grade 2 and 4 cohorts. Previous
Table 6. Level of intervention as a predictor of positive and negative attitudes toward bullying, and perception of bullying as a school priority, by time and grade level.
Baseline Post 1 Post 2
Attitude b(SE)pb(SE)pb(SE)p
Positive attitude toward bullying
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 –.01 (.03) .737 .03 (.04) .484 .02 (.04) .683
Grade 4 –.01 (.03) .949 .03 (.04) .392 –.06 (.04) .157
Grade 6 –.05 (.03) .120 .04 (.04) .381 .06 (.06) .349
Intervention: low
Grade 2 –.04 (.03) .273 .03 (.04) .470 .03 (.04) .448
Grade 4 .02 (.03) .506 –.01 (.04) .767 .01 (.04) .844
Grade 6 –.04 (.03) .254 .01 (.04) .806 .08 (.06) .187
Negative attitude toward bullying
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 .06 (.06) .327 .09 (.09) .339 .06 (.10) .549
Grade 4 .06 (.05) .166 .02 (.05) .656 .10 (.05) .040
Grade 6 –.01 (.04) .954 .10 (.06) .084 .04 (.06) .449
Intervention: Low
Grade 2 .09 (.06) .149 .16 (.09) .068 .11 (.10) .295
Grade 4 .02 (.04) .580 –.02 (.05) .722 .12 (.05) .030
Grade 6 .03 (.04) .398 .06 (.06) .282 .06 (.06) .278
Bullying is a school priority
Intervention: moderate
Grade 2 –.02 (.09) .787 .10 (.09) .262 –.02 (.08) .834
Grade 4 –.02 (.11) .878 –.04 (.07) .563 .06 (.11) .566
Grade 6 .12 (.07) .069 –.04 (.07) .628 –.08 (.08) .344
Intervention: low
Grade 2 .17 (.08) .040
–.08 (.09) .398 .03 (.08) .698
Grade 4 .09 (.10) .373 .01 (.07) .878 –.12 (.11) .267
Grade 6 .20 (.06) .001 .03 (.07) .693 –.03 (.08) .714
Note. All models take into account engagement, policy involvement, and effectiveness of strategies and clustered nature of the data. Reference category is high
intervention.
p<.05.
Table 7. Impact of level of posttest 1 intervention on parents
a
.
High
intervention
Moderate
intervention
Increased knowledge 71.1% 68.5%
Increased confidence to talk
about bullying
54.9% 45.7%
Improved skills to discuss bullying 60.1% 47.4%
Changed attitudes toward bullying 22.7% 17.1%
Improved my behaviors 26.3% 23.7%
Improved understanding of
school response
61.5% 71.4%
Note.
a
Multiple responses allowed.
8D. CROSS ET AL.
research found that adolescents who talked more frequently
about their actions and activities to their mother or father were
less likely to report having bullied others or having been bullied
(Georgiou & Stavrinides, 2013). Moreover, parents beginning
discussions with their children about ways to prevent and cope
with bullying from an early age, as was shown with the Grade 2
cohort in this study, may help to enhance behavioral and social
outcomes in later childhood and adolescence, and encourage
those children to seek their parents’support and advice about
bullying incidents should they occur.
The majority of high- and medium-dose parents in this
study reported that the resources helped them increase their
child’s awareness of bullying and how to respond to bullying.
Importantly, the high-dose parents also reported that the home
activity sheets helped them increase their bullying-related
knowledge, their confidence to talk about bullying prevention
and management, and improve their understanding of their
child’s school’s response to bullying. Interestingly, the moder-
ate-dose parents also indicated the home activities they received
increased their knowledge and understanding of their schools’
response to bullying, but also reported these lower-dose activi-
ties did not improve their self-efficacy skills or the frequency of
their conversations with their children.
When considering these FSFF parent findings in conjunction
with the positive FSFF student findings, reported elsewhere
(Cross et al., 2012), it is reasonable to suggest the high-dose fam-
ily intervention component of the FSFF whole-school program
may have contributed to the overall reduction in student victimi-
zation and perpetration rates. The 3-year FSFF student outcome
trial found significantly lower bullying and victimization rates in
the high-dose intervention group compared to the low-dose
intervention group. Consistent with the FSFF student findings,
the parent findings in this study were most significant for the
high-dose intervention Grade 4 cohort compared to the low-
dose intervention group (Cross et al., 2012). The Grade 4 cohort
of high-dose intervention parents in this study reported talking
more often with their children about bullying, higher self-efficacy
to do so, and fewer poor attitudes to bullying over time com-
pared to the low- and moderate-dose intervention groups.
Though most of the respondents to the long survey in this
study were the children’s mothers, paternal involvement has
also been found to be strongly associated with bullying behav-
ior, particularly when maternal involvement is low (Flouri &
Buchanan, 2003). Fathers’involvement has also been found to
buffer the impact of bullying on boys’wellbeing and contribute
more strongly to life satisfaction among boys who were fre-
quently bullied (Flouri & Buchanan, 2002). Additionally, the
involvement of both parents (i.e., time together, displays of
affection, and talking together) in a child’s life reduces aggres-
sive behavior for boys (Harachi et al., 2006) and is significantly
associated with less bullying victimization (Flouri & Buchanan,
2002), especially among 13–19-year-old boys.
Hence, while family systems theory refers to developing
shared patterns of behavior and coping mechanisms in family
environments, it may be necessary to focus on enabling and
encouraging all individual members of this context, especially
fathers or male carers, to be more involved in conversations
about bullying prevention with their children. While the FSFF
high-dose intervention aimed to actively engage with both
parents to motivate them to talk more frequently to their chil-
dren about bullying, and also tried to collect data about the
effectiveness of this involvement from both parents via the long
and short versions of the questionnaire used in this study,
future studies may benefit from encouraging the active partici-
pation of fathers in particular.
The findings in this study suggest the resources distributed
to only the high-dose intervention groups were perceived by
parents to be memorable, readable, useful, and helpful to guide
how to talk about bullying with their children. This is an
important finding, as, according to Rogers’Diffusion of Inno-
vations Theory (Rogers, 2003), successful adoption of an inno-
vation (e.g., this parent intervention) is influenced by several
features of the innovation itself. These include the benefits it
offers over previous knowledge/practices, its compatibility with
the target group’s values and needs, its complexity, opportuni-
ties to practice, and whether outcomes are readily observable.
To increase the likelihood of parents positively affecting
their children’s peer relationships, they must begin by develop-
ing and practicing their skills, with support and encouragement
from the school (Pearce, 2010; Rogers, 2003). While the moder-
ate-dose parents also indicated their home activities increased
their knowledge and understanding of their schools’response
to bullying, their confidence to discuss and frequency of discus-
sions with their child did not improve. This suggests that higher
intensity contact with parents, with a specific focus on skill-
building to enhance parent–child communication, is an impor-
tant step for schools to improve parent capacity to prevent
bullying behaviors.
Limitations
The design of the FSFF study attempted to address some weak-
nesses identified in reviews of previous whole-school bullying
intervention research (Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll,
2007). It embedded family engagement in a whole-school
approach to bullying prevention, actively engaged parents/
carers in the delivery of antibullying-related knowledge and
skills, and encouraged them to deliver this content to their chil-
dren. The study also used a longitudinal study design, random
assignment to condition, appropriate comparison conditions,
analyses that adjusted for clustering of individuals in schools,
and had adequate power to detect moderate effects.
However, this study was still affected by several methodolog-
ical limitations. First, the data reported in this article were col-
lected using parent self-report measures, which may not accord
with children’s experiences. Second, despite the random
sampling of schools, parents in the high- and moderate-dose
intervention groups reported higher levels of education at base-
line than those in the low-dose intervention group. Although
the analyses controlled for baseline differences, higher levels of
parental education have been associated with lower victimiza-
tion levels experienced by their children (see Jansen et al.,
2012). As such, the intervention effects may have been spuri-
ously inflated with more educated parents being more likely to
engage with school initiatives. Alternatively, the moderate- and
high-dose parents may have been less interested in the inter-
vention because of their children’s reduced likelihood of being
bullied, compared to the low-dose parents with lower levels of
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 9
education. In this case, this study’s low-dose parents may have
been more motivated in their efforts to reduce bullying with
their children, which in turn may have reduced the observed
intervention effects.
Third, the cohort attrition rate for the study was 56%, hence
the parents who remained in the study (across all intervention
groups) may have been more proactive and engaged generally
than those lost to follow-up. It is not clear why more low- and
high-dose parents were lost to follow-up. In previous interven-
tion research, we have observed that more comparison group
(low-dose) parents sometimes drop out because they have
felt less engaged and committed to the research project. Some
of the high-dose parents may have felt more fatigued by the
intervention, although this was not evident in the process data.
Finally, our study results were tempered by a contaminated
control group. According to Cohen’s categories, this study
found small (dD.2) to moderate (dD.5) positive effects
related to frequency of discussion of bullying, self-efficacy, and
negative attitudes toward bullying (Cohen, 1988). As identified
by Smith, Ananiadou, and Cowie (2003), we could not assume
that schools randomly assigned to the control (low-dose) con-
dition were not engaged in other anti-bullying interventions.
However, Flay, Graumlich, Segawa, Burns, and Holliday (2004)
concurred that it is necessary to compare multicomponent pro-
grams with the best school programs of known effectiveness to
estimate the contribution of the new intervention over and
above the currently used school program. This study used two
lower intensity interventions, the first equivalent to the best
that would be used in schools adopting a new whole-school
bullying prevention program (i.e., moderate dose) and the sec-
ond (i.e., low dose) supporting schools to implement their usual
practice to reduce bullying.
Conclusions
Many school staff describe challenges in proactively engaging
parents or families in whole-school programs, especially those
designed to reduce bullying. Our findings suggest that engaging
parents to determine their bullying prevention self-efficacy
needs, and then involving them where possible in the delivery of
this content to their children, increases parent–children commu-
nication about bullying. The high-dose parent intervention may
also have increased the willingness of and opportunities for
school staff to engage with parents, or boosted parent confidence
to engage with their children’s school/teachers about bullying.
It therefore appears worthwhile to actively engage parents in
the primary school environment, especially in the early years
(at 6–8 years old) prior to the development of patterns of bully-
ing behavior, and during the middle childhood years (9–
11 years old) when bullying is beginning to peak, although this
may be of less importance when students reach adolescence
(Cross et al., 2009).
Future researchers need to investigate children’s perceptions
of the frequency, content, and quality of their discussions with
their parents; the consistency and quality of bullying preven-
tion conversations parents have with their children; the impact
of school–family partnerships on staff and parents’communi-
cation and their reliance on each other to help reduce bullying;
and the longitudinal effects of parenting style.
This study provides further evidence to enhance policy and
practice for education systems and schools, about when and what
schools can do to most effectively enable parent involvement in
whole-school approaches to reduce student bullying behavior.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the following people for their contribution to this proj-
ect: Dr. Clare Roberts, Erin Erceg, Dr. Marg Hall, Dr. Therese Shaw, Dr.
Sharyn Burns, Dr. Stacey Waters, Coosje Griffiths, Anne Valenti, Joanne
Graham-Smith, Dr. Laura Thomas, and Helen Monks. The participation
of 20 study schools and pilot schools, their staff, parents, and students is
gratefully acknowledged.
Funding
This research was supported by the Western Australian Health Promotion
Foundation (Healthway) through research grant 10574.
References
Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., &
Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to
adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative
cohort study. Pediatrics, 118, 130–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2005-2388
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cog-
nitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bavelas, J. B., & Segal, L. (1982). Family systems theory: Background and
implications. Journal of Communication, 32, 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1460-2466.1982.tb02503.x
Boulton, M. J., & Underwood, K. (1992). Bully/victim problems among
middle school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62,
73–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1992.tb01000.x
Bowes,L.,Maughan,B.,Caspi,A.,Moffitt, T. E., & Arseneault, L.
(2010). Families promote emotional and behavioural resilience to
bullying: Evidence of an environmental effect. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 51, 809–817. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-7610.2010.02216.x
Christian, L. G. (2006). Understanding families: Applying family systems
theory to early childhood practice. Young Children, 61, 12–20.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mah-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J.,
Simons-Morton, B., &Due, P. (2009). A cross-national profile of bully-
ing and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International
Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s00038-009-5413-9
Cross, D., & Barnes, A. (2014). Using systems theory to understand and
respond to family influences on children’s bullying behavior: Friendly
Schools Friendly Families Program. Theory Into Practice, 53, 293–299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.947223
Cross, D., Monks, H., Hall, M., Shaw, T., Pintabona, Y., Erceg, E., …Les-
ter, L. (2011). Threeyear results of the Friendly Schools wholeof-
school intervention on children’s bullying behaviour. British
Educational Research Journal, 37, 105–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01411920903420024
Cross, D., Pintabona, Y., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., & Erceg, E. (2004). Vali-
dated guidelines for school-based bullying prevention and manage-
ment. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 6(3), 34–42.
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., &
Thomas, L. (2009). Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study
(ACBPS). Perth, Australia: Report prepared for the Department of Edu-
cation, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
Cross, D., Waters, S., Pearce, N., Shaw, T., Hall, M., Erceg, E., …Hamilton,
G. (2012). The Friendly Schools Friendly Families programme: Three-
year bullying behaviour outcomes in primary school children.
10 D. CROSS ET AL.
International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 394–406. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.05.004
Due, P., Holstein, B. E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S. N., Scheidt,
P., & Currie, C. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged
children: International comparative cross sectional study in 28 coun-
tries. The European Journal of Public Health, 15, 128–132. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki105
Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies
and victims. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in Amer-
ican schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and interven-
tion (pp. 227–244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fergusson, D. M., Boden, J. M., & Horwood, L. J. (2013). Bullying in child-
hood, externalizing behaviors, and adult offending: Evidence from a
30-year study. Journal of School Violence, 13, 146–164. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/15388220.2013.840642
Fingerman, K. L., & Bermann, E. (2000). Applications of family systems
theory to the study of adulthood. International Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 51, 5–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/7TF8-
WB3F-TMWG-TT3K
Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., & Holliday, M. Y. (2004).
Effects of 2 prevention programs on high-risk behaviors among African
American youth. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 158,
377–384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.4.377.
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2002). Life satisfaction in teenage boys: The
moderating role of father involvement and bullying. Aggressive Behav-
ior, 28, 126–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.90014
Flouri, E., & Buchanan, A. (2003). The role of mother involvement and
father involvement in adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence, 18, 634–644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0886260503251129
Georgiou, S. N. (2008). Parental style and child bullying and victimization
experiences at school. Social Psychology of Education, 11, 213–227.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-007-9048-5
Georgiou, S. N., & Stavrinides, P. (2013). Parenting at home and bullying
at school. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 165–179. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s11218-012-9209-z
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychoso-
matic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1215
Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic prob-
lems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132, 720–729. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1542/peds.2013-0614
Harachi, T. W., Flemming, C. B., White, H. R., Ensminger, M. E., Abbott,
R. D., Catalano, R. F., & Haggerty, K. P. (2006). Aggressive behaviour
among girls and boys during middle childhood: Predictors and
sequelae of trajectory group membership. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 279–
293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20125
Healy, K. L., & Sanders, M. R. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of a
family intervention for children bullied by peers. Behavior Therapy, 45,
760–777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2014.06.001
Hemphill, S. A., Heerde, J. A., & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual definition
of school-based bullying for the Australian research and academic com-
munity. Canberra, Australia: Australian Research Alliance for Children
and Youth.
Jansen, P. W., Verlinden, M., Dommisse-van Berkel, A., Mieloo, C., van
der Ende, J., Veenstra, R., & Tiemeier, H. (2012). Prevalence of bullying
and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do fam-
ily and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Pub-
lic Health, 12, 494–504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-494
Jim
enez Barbero, J. A., Ruiz Hern
andez, J. A., Llor Esteban, B., & P
erez
Garc
ıa, M. (2012). Effectiveness of antibullying school programmes: A
systematic review by evidence levels. Children and Youth Services Review,
34, 1646–1658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.025
K€
arn€
a, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmi-
valli, C. (2011). A Large-Scale Evaluation of the KiVa Antibullying Pro-
gram: Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311–330. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01557.x
Kowalski, R. M., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Psychological, physical, and aca-
demic correlates of cyberbullying and traditional bullying. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 53, S13–S20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2012.09.018
Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the
risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study.
Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1091–1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2013.03.001
McLennan, W. (1998). 1996 census of population and housing. Canberra,
Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and
experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76,
435–450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00855.x
Pearce, N. (2010). Building school capacity to engage parents in school-
based bullying prevention interventions (unpublished thesis). Perth,
Australia: Edith Cowan University.
Raskauskas, J. L., Gregory, J., Harvey, S. T., Rifshana, F., & Evans, I. M.
(2010). Bullying among primary school children in New Zealand: Rela-
tionships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate. Educational
Research, 52, 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131881003588097
Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school chil-
dren: Reported behaviour and attitudes toward victims. Journal of
Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.1991.9924646
Roberts, W. B. Jr., & Morotti, A. A. (2000). The bully as victim: Under-
standing bully behaviors to increase the effectiveness of interventions
in the bully-victim dyad. Professional School Counseling, 4, 148–155.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2009.08.007
Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying inter-
vention: Implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 75, 465–487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709905X26011
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The
effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of
evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547–560.
Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce
school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 591–9.
Snyder, J., Cramer, A., Afrank, J., & Patterson, G. R. (2005). The contribu-
tions of ineffective discipline and parental hostile attributions of child
misbehavior to the development of conduct problems at home and
school. Developmental Psychology, 41, 30–41. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.30
Spriggs, A. L., Iannotti, R. J., Nansel, T. R., & Haynie, D. L. (2007). Adoles-
cent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school rela-
tions: commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, 283–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jadohealth.2007.04.009
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. (2009). What works in preventing bullying:
Effective elements of anti-bullying programmes. Journal of Aggression,
Conflict and Peace Research, 1, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
17596599200900003
Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based pro-
grams to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Jour-
nal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11292-010-9109-1
Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., L€
osel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the vic-
tims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A system-
atic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of
Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 63–73. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1108/17596591111132873
Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L.,
Cunningham, C., & Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening
of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9, 233–
250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2010.483182
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-
based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Ado-
lescent Medicine, 161, 78–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/
archpedi.161.1.78.
Wolke, D., Copeland, W. E., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Impact of
bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social out-
comes. Psychological Science, 24, 1958–1970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0956797613481608
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 11
Appendix
These questions were included in the parent questionnaire and provided the data for this paper. The full instrument can be
obtained by contacting the authors.
Q5. How would you rate the priority your child’s school places on addressing bullying?. (please circle one number only)
Q11. As a parent/caregiver, how much of a difference do you believe you can make to the reduction of bullying? (please
circle one number for each statement)
Q13. Do you think bullying is: (please circle one number for each statement)
Q14. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (please circle one number for
each statement)
a LOW priority 1
bMEDIUM priority 2
cHIGH priority 3
d Don’t know 4
A lot Somewhat A little Not at all Don’t know
a I can encourage my Year 4 child to help someone who is being bullied 1 2 3 4 5
b I can encourage my Year 4 child to report bullying to adults 1 2 3 4 5
c I can discourage my Year 4 child from bullying others 1 2 3 4 5
d I can influence how my Year 4 child responds to being bullied. 1 2 3 4 5
e I can help how my Year 4 child responds to being bullied so that
it doesn’t happen again.
12 34 5
f I can help my Year 4 child cope with bullying more than the school can. 1 2 3 4 5
Yes No Don’t know
a Calling someone names often 1 2 3
b Hitting, kicking and pushing someone again and again 1 2 3
c Often leaving someone out 1 2 3
d Saying nasty things about someone again and again 1 2 3
e Getting into a fight with someone 1 2 3
f Hiding or breaking someone’s things often 1 2 3
g Forcing someone to do things they don’t want to do again and again 1 2 3
h Often saying you are going to hurt someone 1 2 3
i Giving a mean look to someone again and again 1 2 3
Note. Adapted from Boulton and Underwood (1992).
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Unsure
a It makes me angry when students are bullied 1 2 3 4 5
b Bullying toughens students up 1 2 3 4 5
cIt’s up to parents, not teachers, to teach their children how to respond to bullying 1 2 3 4 5
d Students who bully are unlikely to change their behaviour unless they get help 1 2 3 4 5
e It is the responsibility of ALL school staff to stop bullying 1 2 3 4 5
f Students who are bullied usually deserve what they get 1 2 3 4 5
g Students who are bullied should cope with it on their own 1 2 3 4 5
h Teachers should do more to prevent bullying from happening 1 2 3 4 5
i Teachers should play more than a policing role in stopping bullying,
they should also aim to change students’attitudes about bullying.
123 4 5
j Students who complain about bullying are usually ‘telling tales’123 4 5
Note. Adapted from the Pro-victim Scale (Rigby & Slee, 1991)
12 D. CROSS ET AL.
Q32. Do you feel have enough knowledge to TALK WITH your Year 4 child about the following? (please circle one number
for each statement)
Q33. How often in Term 1, did you discuss the following topics with your Year 4 child? (please circle one number for each
statement)
No Somewhat Yes Unsure
a What bullying is 1 2 3 5
b What to do if he/she is being bullied 1 2 3 5
c Why he/she should not bully others 1 2 3 5
d What to do if he/she sees other people being
bullied
1235
e Who he/she can talk to if he/she is being bullied 1 2 3 5
f How to make friends 1 2 3 5
More than 5 times 3-5 times 1-2 times Never Can’t remember how often
a What bullying is 1 2 3 4 5
b What to do if he/she is being bullied 1 2 3 4 5
c Why he/she should not bully others 1 2 3 4 5
d What to do if he/she sees other people being bullied 1 2 3 4 5
e Who he/she can talk to if he/she are being bullied 1 2 3 4 5
f How to make friends 1 2 3 4 5
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 13