Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from International Journal of Bullying Prevention
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Vol:.(1234567890)
International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-021-00111-9
1 3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Promoting Junior School Students’ Anti‑bullying Beliefs withtheCATZ
Cross‑age Teaching Zone Intervention
MichaelJ.Boulton1· PeterJ.R.Macaulay2 · SiobhanAtherton1· LouiseBoulton1· TraceyColebourne1·
MelanieDavies1· JamesDown1· IanGarner1· BethanHarriss1· LauraKenton1· BethanLomas1· HeddaMarx1·
SamanthaScattergood1· ClaireTurner1
Accepted: 24 October 2021 / Published online: 9 November 2021
© The Author(s) 2021
Abstract
In tackling the widespread problem of bullying victimisation, researchers have acknowledged the value of focusing on
changing bullying-related beliefs and using peer-based interventions. In three studies (N = 419, 237 intervention and 182
controls), we tested the effectiveness of the CATZ cross-age teaching programme by inviting small groups of 11-year-olds
to incorporate information supporting positive beliefs (concerning non-physical forms of bullying, the value of disclosing
being bullied to adults, and helping victims) into a lesson they devised for themselves and to deliver that to small groups of
9-year-olds. Specifically, we examined if the intervention would promote that (i) non-physical forms of bullying are unac-
ceptable (study 1), (ii) disclosing bullying to adults and getting the right kind of help have value and importance (study 2),
and (iii) victims can be assisted in safe ways (study 3). Self-reports of nine specific aspects of these beliefs were collected
from CATZ tutors and age-matched controls prior to and following the intervention, and at five-week follow-up in one study,
using both open and closed questions. Results indicated significant positive effects of CATZ on all nine outcome variables,
with mostly medium and high effect sizes. These findings support the use of CATZ to foster positive anti-bullying beliefs,
and issues related to its wider uptake are discussed.
Keywords Bullying· Victims· Social support· Disclosure· Anti-bullying· Intervention
Introduction
Bullying is a sub-class of aggression that may take many dif-
ferent forms and involves intentional and repeated attempts
to distress or harm a less powerful victim (Olweus, 1993,
2013). Common types include physical bullying (e.g.
pushing, hitting), verbal bullying (e.g. name-calling, ver-
bal threats), and relational bullying (e.g. rumour circula-
tion; manipulation, social exclusion)(Baldry & Farrington,
2004). Like bullying, cyberbullying is another sub-type of
aggression and despite sharing similar characteristics to
bullying (i.e. intent to cause harm; repetition, power imbal-
ance), it is also characterised by unique differences (Smith,
2016; Macaulay etal., 2020). Unlike bullying, cyberbullying
is perpetrated online, and features of anonymity and public-
ity play a bigger role in the online domain (Macaulay etal.,
2020; Smith, 2016; Steer etal., 2020). It is common among
school students (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017; Olweus &
Limber, 2010; Salmivalli, 2010) and is and continues to be
a threat to their well-being, with teachers often struggling to
address the issue within the school (Macaulay etal., 2018).
One recent large-scale survey in the UK of 9150
12–20-year-olds revealed that 51% were bullied at least
once a month, with at least 34% being bullied each week
(Ditch the Label, 2018). In addition, Przybylski and Bowes
(2017) in their survey of 120,115 UK adolescents found
that 27% had experienced being bullied on a regular basis.
Despite scholars recognising variations in reported preva-
lence due to differing definitions and assessment methods
used within research (see Volk etal., 2017), it is clear that
bullying is a problematic issue that calls for intervention in
the school environment. It can have diverse negative effects
* Peter J. R. Macaulay
p.macaulay@derby.ac.uk
1 University ofChester, Chester, UK
2 School ofPsychology, University ofDerby, Kedleston Road,
DerbyDE221GB, UK
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
39International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
on the health and well-being of victims (Arseneault, 2017;
Boulton etal., 2008; Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Reijntes
etal., 2010), bullies (Copeland etal., 2013; Cowie & Myers,
2017), and onlookers (Midgett & Doumas, 2019; Rivers,
2012). Previous cross-sectional studies have reported how
involvement in bullying can lead to serious adverse out-
comes, such as increased suicidal ideation (Hinduja &
Patchin, 2019), higher levels of social anxiety (Hawker &
Boulton, 2000), and depression (Foody etal., 2020). These
outcomes of school bullying not only occur within child-
hood experiences, but also through into adulthood (Zych
etal., 2015), suggesting that it may precipitate adverse later
life outcomes (Arseneault etal., 2010). Thus, bullying is a
serious public health concern and it is imperative that effec-
tive anti-bullying interventions are put in place to address
the issue.
While progress has been made in implementing interven-
tions to tackle bullying, meta-analyses reveal residual rates
that are usually far from zero (Merrell etal., 2008; Ttofi &
Farrington, 2011). However, meta-analyses and systematic
reviews on anti-bullying intervention strategies, in general,
report some positive outcomes for anti-bullying prevention
efforts, reducing bullying victimisation and perpetration
(e.g. Evans etal., 2014; Gaffney etal., 2019). For exam-
ple, Gaffney etal. (2019) found in their meta-analysis on
the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs
that there was a reduction of victimisation by 8–12% from
evaluations conducted in the UK, with positive outcomes
at reducing victimisation and perpetration globally. Despite
this, anti-bullying interventions have not always been
regarded as effective (Cunningham etal., 2016). One reason
might be because students are not always receptive to anti-
bullying initiatives delivered by teachers and other adults.
Rigby and Bradshaw (2003) and Boulton and Boulton
(2012)reported that many students believed teachers were
not usually interested in tackling bullying and expressed
little or no desire to collaborate with them in this regard.
More recently, qualitative focus groups with young people
suggested that anti-bullying interventions did not engage
students, were delivered in a repetitive manner, and students
felt that teachers were not the best group to deliver these
anti-bullying messages (Cunningham etal., 2016). In addi-
tion, there is a belief among students, particularly victims
of bullying, that teacher involvement may make the situa-
tion worse, and so students do not expect teachers to get
involved (Newman & Murray,2005; Smith & Shu,2000).
However, in order to solicit help, it is crucial that students
do report bullying victimisation to teachers, and so the
current study investigated how that might be encouraged.
Partly for these reasons, student-led interventions, often
a peer support service or buddy system (Boulton, 2005;
Cowie, 2011; Tzani-Pepelasi etal., 2019), have also been
implemented and evaluated. While these may help victims
who use this service feel better, they do not come close to
being a “proven” anti-bullying strategy because they are
not directed at variables that are likely to mitigate bullying
or its negative effects in the wider community of students
(Gaffney etal., 2019; Houlston & Smith, 2009; Thompson
& Smith, 2011). Nevertheless, students are now regarded as
central to anti-bullying work, and efforts to find alternative
ways of involving them are warranted, especially in commu-
nity samples (Salmivalli, 2010). Studies have revealed sig-
nificant, albeit modest, associations between beliefs about
bullying and actual behaviour, suggesting that changing the
former could lead to reductions in the latter (Boulton etal.,
2001; Boulton etal., 2002). We now consider some specific
beliefs that research suggests may do so.
Some sub-types of bullying, notably social exclusion and
verbal bullying, are not perceived as serious as others, or
even not as bullying per se, and this may be a reason why
some students engage in them (Newman & Murray, 2005).
For example, bullies may regard verbal bullying as a form
of joking around with their peers (Shute etal., 2008). Some
research has also reported that many young people and
adults fail to recognise verbal bullying as something serious,
at least relative to physical bullying (Jacobsen & Bauman,
2007; Maunder etal., 2010). Such beliefs may encourage
the notion that incidents of verbal and social exclusion bul-
lying are acceptable in the school environment or at least
less likely to be “picked up” by the teachers. However, both
forms can be considered a harmful form of peer relation-
ships with adverse consequences (Coleman & Byrd, 2003;
Hawker & Boulton, 2001). Given that verbal and relational
bullying are seen as less serious than other forms of bully-
ing, it is important that further work explores how harmful
young people view verbal and relational bullying and if they
regard these types of bullying as acceptable. In a sub-sample
of approximately 6400 young people that reported experi-
encing bullying victimisation, verbal bullying and relational
bullying were identified as the most prevalent types of bully-
ing, with 88% having experienced verbal and 53% relational
(Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015). So, while these forms of
bullying are often not only considered less serious than other
forms, they are also a more common experience for young
people.
Considering gender differences, more girls than boys
have been found to be victims of verbal or relational bully-
ing (Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015) and, not surprisingly, to
be more likely to view these types of bullying as more seri-
ous (Maunder etal., 2010; Shute etal., 2008). For example,
Shute etal. reported that boys perceive verbal bullying as
less serious and deemed such acts as harmless with no
concern on the impact bullying could have. Despite this,
one other study suggested that boys and girls are equally
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
40 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
likely to engage in verbal or relational bullying, with no
gender differences on the perceived severity of the bullying
(Newman & Murray, 2005).
Despite the distress it often arouses, bullying often
goes un-reported by victims (Boulton, 2005; Cowie, 2000;
Hunter etal., 2004). Encouraging more disclosure is a
necessary condition for mobilising social support and is
clearly warranted to help eliminate bullying in the school
community and beyond. The bullying literature has noted
that many students choose not to disclose bullying victimi-
sation to teachers because they do not believe that teachers
can or will provide help (Bradshaw etal., 2007; Unnever &
Cornell,2004). More recently, one study found that students
were less likely to report their victimisation experiences
if they did not trust the teachers and school staff (Berger
etal., 2019). This consideration highlights the promising
role of student-led interventions not only to combat bul-
lying in general, but also to support students that may not
trust the support of teachers in the school environment.
Indeed, teachers can play an important role when providing
social support to victims of bullying to reduce any negative
outcomes. From a theoretical perspective, the stress buff-
ering hypothesis suggests that increased perceived social
support can reduce the relationship between a stressor and
a negative outcome (Cohen & Wills, 1985). Boys have been
found to be less inclined to partake in services that focus
on social support for bullying, and girls are often more
inclined to seek help generally (Boulton, 2005; Cowie,
2000). In addition, girls are more likely to view seeking
help as the best strategy to overcome bullying and make
them feel better (Hunter etal., 2004). In general, when it
comes to the disclosure of bullying and seeking help, girls
compared to boys are more likely seek social support to
help cope with victimisation (Eliot etal., 2010; Oliver &
Candappa, 2007).
One reason why boy’s may be less inclined to seek help
is that such help seeking behaviours may compromise
boys’ sense of masculinity, and boys may perceive it is less
socially acceptable for them to ask for help (Cowie, 2000;
Nadler, 1998). By encouraging young people to disclose
victimisation to teachers, social support can be mobilised
which will provide more options to the victim on how to
cope with their victimisation, potentially reducing the nega-
tive outcomes. Teachers are important sources of support
to help victims of bullying (Beckman & Svensson, 2015;
Boulton etal., 2013), so it is important to encourage disclo-
sure for young people so they can ask for the right kind of
help and support and also understand when it is important
to tell a teacher they have been bullied and would benefit
from support.
Encouraging bystanders, those who witness bullying, to
take responsibility to do something positive is also important
since they are often reluctant to do so (Caravita etal., 2009;
Gini etal., 2008; Thornberg etal., 2020). Young people are
known to make evaluations about the likely impact of differ-
ent types of bullying on victims (Chen etal., 2015) and so
can respond in a negative or positive manner as they weigh
up the risks and benefits according to different courses of
action. Recent research with 868 11–13-year-olds in the UK
found that bystanders reported they would provide emotional
support to the victim and intervene to address the bully when
they evaluated the incident to be severe, characterised by the
intensity of the bullying, frequency of the victimisation, and
extent the victim was upset (Macaulay etal., 2019).
As with other aspects of bullying, the moderating role
of gender on bystander intervention is inconsistent. Boys
showed more positive defending behaviour in some studies
(Caravita etal., 2009), but in others, girls did so (Gini etal.,
2008; Macaulay etal., 2019). It has been suggested that
girls view bullying in general as more serious than boys
and so may feel a greater responsibility to do something
positive to help the victim (Maunder etal., 2010; Molluzzo
& Lawler, 2012). Nevertheless, so many young people
are often reluctant to intervene, leading Salmivalli etal.,
(1996, p. 117) to suggest that “bystanders were trapped in
a social dilemma”. It would appear that many young people
recognise bullying as inappropriate but are afraid to inter-
vene to support victims because of the perceived impact
on their social status and safety (Boulton, 2013). Rock and
Baird (2012) also suggested that students do not know what
to do, and that teaching them safe intervention strategies
would be helpful. Indeed, a recent meta-analysis showed
that such bystander-targeted interventions led to more posi-
tive bystander behaviour such as supporting victims and
dissuading perpetrators (Polanin etal., 2012). However,
effect sizes (ESs) are not always large (e.g. Kärnä etal.,
2011a, 2011b) and so different approaches to mobilising
bystanders need to be developed and tested, including
changing underlying beliefs about how to do it and why it is
a helpful thing to do.
The Cross‑age Teaching Zone Intervention
Co-operative group work (CGW) has been shown to assist
students’ learning in academic (Baines etal., 2007; Veldman
etal., 2020) and social/behavioural domains (Blatchford
etal., 2006; Cowie etal., 1994), including anti-bullying
learning (Boulton etal., 2016; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).
Similarly, cross-age teaching (CAT) approaches have been
shown to benefit tutors’ academic development (Karcher,
2009; McDaniel & Besnoy, 2019; Robinson etal., 2005;
Topping etal., 2011) and social/behavioural development
(Robinson etal., 2005; Watts etal., 2019). For example,
Watts etal. reported from a synthesis of the literature that
the use of CAT approaches provides an effective platform
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
41International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
in promoting academic, social, and behavioural skills for
young people. Given these positive but separate results for
CGW and CAT across such a wide variety of domains and
variables, the first author developed an approach that com-
bined them to target social outcomes, referred to here as
the cross-age teaching zone (CATZ), and in this paper, we
consider if it can be used to promote anti-bullying beliefs
among students.
There are good theoretical and empirical reasons why a
focus on the effect of CATZ on tutors rather than tutees is
appropriate. Working with the lesson content (LC) facilitates
cognitive restructuring and elaboration as it is incorporated
into existing schemas (O’Donnell & O’Kelly, 1994; Slavin,
1996; Thurston etal., 2007; Topping & Ehly, 1998), which
suggest that CATZ provides opportunities for learning as
tutors work with the LC, make links with knowledge they
already hold, and go on to develop more advanced cognitive
structures and schemas. Applying Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory (1978), the scaffolding of this type of learning pro-
vided by the adult facilitators of CATZ interventions, and
the fact that tutors are required to re-work the LC into a
viable lesson, means that tutors are in the zone of proximal
development, that is, just outside what they can do or know
unaided. In our case, that means CATZ tutors will likely be
“thinking about bullying” in novel ways. The fact that CATZ
tutors are working co-operatively to develop and deliver
their lesson further optimises the likelihood that they will
learn the LC. Slavin (1996) argued that such co-operative
activities provide “implicit” reward and incentive structures,
and so CATZ tutors are likely to see that they have a respon-
sibility to their group that can be met if they themselves
master/learn the LC. Role theory also suggests that acting as
a teacher promotes that feeling of responsibility even more
because it engenders a sense of care towards tutees (Biddle,
1986; Robinson etal., 2005). This implies that the tutors
teaching the material to younger students (i.e. the tutees)
would take their role seriously, hence facilitating an effective
learning environment for both the tutors and tutees.
Moreover, it is now apparent that intervention
approaches that only indirectly and subtly “challenge
and change” existing thought patterns can be effective
(Longmore & Worrell, 2007). This is especially important
given that many students are resistant to direct attempts to
change their bullying-related beliefs and actions (Boulton
& Boulton, 2012). Thus, having CATZ tutors work on
material about bullying in a general sense to help their
tutees, in the absence of direct attempts to change their
beliefs, could be sufficient for them to “take ownership”
of this new information about bullying and internalise it.
While attempts to stop students engaging in bullying are
clearly warranted, it is now clear that this is very difficult
to bring about, and researchers are beginning to explore
interventions that target underlying beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge (Evans etal., 2014; Gaffney etal., 2019; Kärnä
etal., 2011a, 2011b). It is important to do this among the
wider community of school students and not just those
who currently act as bullies (Salmivalli, 2010). Partly for
this reason, and partly because interventions that have the
most positive effects on the most students are more likely
to be taken up by school staff, we are currently looking at
the effect of CATZ on tutees’ attitudes/beliefs, feelings,
and behaviour. The psychological mechanisms that might
be responsible for any such positive effects are likely to be
different to those outlined above for tutors, and so we will
report them in detail in the near future.
In terms of anti-bullying practices, the acceptability of
community interventions with students in schools is impor-
tant because it can influence levels of engagement, treat-
ment integrity, and ultimately treatment outcome (Cowan
& Sheridan, 2003; Cunningham etal., 2016; Kazdin, 1980).
Reports of the social validity of anti-bullying interventions
are rare, and no study has so far reported it for CATZ with its
co-operative and cross-age teaching characteristics. Consid-
erable evidence suggests that girls are more open to acting as
“agents of change” across a range of peer-led interventions
(Boulton, 2005; Cowie etal., 2002), plausibly because act-
ing in a somewhat formal helping capacity may compromise
boys’ sense of masculinity or macho self-image (Cowie,
2000; Petersen & Rigby, 1999).
Summarising the above, there is a clear need for student-
led community-based interventions that help promote anti-
bullying beliefs. As we have seen, there are good empirical
and theoretical reasons to expect that CATZ may engender
these beliefs among tutors. Our primary aim, therefore, was
to conduct three linked studies that examined the effect of
CATZ on beliefs that (i) non-physical forms of bullying are
unacceptable (study 1), (ii) disclosing bullying to adults and
getting the right kind of help have value and importance
(study 2), and (iii) victims can be assisted in safe ways (study
3). Each intervention was delivered by different researchers
in semi-autonomous ways. Given that the magnitude of posi-
tive effects of interventions delivered by their creators in one
context are often attenuated when they are delivered by other
people in another context (see Yeager & Walton, 2011), this
would allow us to assess the likelihood that CATZ could
be rolled out more widely by diverse groups of facilitators.
Related to the above, our second aim was to test if the
effect of CATZ differed as a function of gender. As noted
above, the literature has reported some, but not always
consistent, gender differences in the kinds of beliefs that
we measured and also in how they respond to peer-led
interventions.
Finally, our third aim, also with relevance to the implica-
tions of our findings for anti-bullying practice, we assessed
the social validity of CATZ by examining how acceptable
it was to participants. Simply put, to be optimally effective,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
42 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
student-led interventions have to be well-received by stu-
dents themselves.
Method
Participants, Measures, Design, andData Collection
Participants (N = 419) were drawn from five junior schools
in the UK. Students’ consent, and that of parents or head
teacher in their loco parentis role, was solicited, and the
response rate was 91% for taking part in our data collec-
tion procedures and 100% for taking part as a CATZ tutor.
To explain the discrepancy, some parents requested that
their children not be presented with questionnaires but none
requested that their children did not take part in CATZ if the
rest of their classmates would be doing so. At the request
of the schools, and partly for logistical reasons, randomisa-
tion was at the class level such that a whole class was either
randomly assigned to be CATZ or control. In each school,
there were at least two classes and at least one class was a
CATZ class and at least one class was a control class. In
none of the participating schools were the classes streamed,
meaning that the children in different classes were likely
to be similar to each other. Overall, across the three stud-
ies, 237 and 182 students were randomly assigned in this
way to act as CATZ tutors or controls, respectively. Teach-
ers asked us to work with the oldest students in the school
(mean age = 11.5years in UK) because they deemed them
most appropriate to deliver anti-bullying learning to their
school mates.
In each study, data were collected on a whole class basis.
Participants received a questionnaire, and a researcher read
out instructions followed by each question. To encourage
considered responses, students were informed, “This is not
a test so there are no right or wrong answers. We just want
to know what each of you think and so there is no need
to copy what somebody else has put. Is that OK?” Pre-
intervention (T1) data were collected immediately prior to
the implementation of the intervention/control experience,
and post-test (T2) data were collected about a week after it
ended. Follow-up (T3) data were also collected five weeks
later in study 2.
In each of the three studies, different outcome measures
were employed (italicised below, nine in total) and different
students in different schools took part. Details of each study
are provided next, and then, the general approach used to
deliver CATZ in all three studies will be described.
Study 1
Ninety-nine participants took part, 55 in the CATZ group
(27 girls and 28 boys) and 44 acted as business as usual
controls continuing with their normal lessons (28 girls and
16 boys). The four dependent variables were beliefs about
non-physical forms of bullying, specifically Harmful Exclu-
sion measured with the closed question “How harmful do
you think social exclusion is?”, Harmful Verbal measured
with the closed question “How harmful do you think ver-
bal bullying is?”, Acceptable Exclusion measured with the
closed question “How acceptable do you think social exclu-
sion is?”, and Acceptable Verbal measured with the closed
question “How acceptable do you think verbal bullying is?”
Each of these four questions had a 5-point response option
initially anchored with “not at all” and “a lot”, and they were
subsequently scored from one to five so that low values were
more desirable (i.e. participants saw the behaviour as less
acceptable and more harmful).
A sub-set of 35 non-CATZ participants from the two con-
trol classes who were present at the time was asked these
questions again one week later to assess test–retest reli-
ability. It was good (all p < 0.001) for Harmful Exclusion
(r = 0.59), Harmful Verbal (r = 0.75), Acceptable Exclusion
(r = 0.72), and Acceptable Verbal (r = 0.44).
Study 2
This study involved 197 participants, 106 CATZ (58 girls
and 48 boys), and 91 business as usual controls continuing
with their normal lessons (50 girls and 41 boys). The two
dependent variables were beliefs concerning getting help
when one is bullied, specifically When to Tell measured with
the open question “If you were bullied, how would you know
when it would be a good idea to tell a teacher?”, and Wanted
Help measured with the open question “If you had been bul-
lied and told a teacher, what could you do to help make sure
you get the right kind of help?” For each open question, a
researcher developed a coding scheme to identify common
categories of responses, and two independent raters then
used it to code all of the responses collected. High levels of
inter-coder agreement were obtained, Cohen’s kappa ≥ 0.89.
Most cases of disagreement were resolved by a discussion
among coders and in a few instances by a third coder. Once
coded, the number of responses that represented “desirable
and appropriate” knowledge was tallied for each participant
and this value was used in the statistical analyses. For exam-
ple, two examples of such responses for Wanted Help were
“I could tell the teacher what I wanted them to do to help
me” and “I would ask the teacher not to tell the bully that I
had reported them”.
A sub-set of (non-CATZ) participants was asked these
two questions again one week later to assess test–retest
reliability. Using the number of responses that indicated
desirable and appropriate knowledge, reliability was good
(p < 0.001) for Wanted Help (r = 0.66) and When to Tell
(r = 0.70).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
43International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
Study 3
There were 123 participants in study 3, 76 CATZ (39 girls
and 37 boys), and 47 controls (18 girls and 29 boys). Unlike
in studies 1 and 2, researchers delivered a 40-min presen-
tation to control participants focused on the material that
CATZ participants had been asked to include in their lessons
(i.e. the CATZ LC). This allowed us to examine the effec-
tiveness of CATZ against a form of direct instruction, some-
thing that is deemed another appropriate way — alongside
a business as usual control group — to test an educational
intervention (Yeager & Walton, 2011).
The three dependent variables were beliefs about support-
ing victims, specifically Victim Support — Emotional, Victim
Support — Address Bully, and Victim Support — Other. The
three DVs were derived from three open questions, “If you
saw another child being bullied, what would you do?”, “How
could you try to stop a bully being nasty to someone without
making them pick on you?”, and “How could you help some-
one if they were bullied?” The coding procedure was similar
to that employed in study 2. The number of “desirable and
appropriate” responses across these three questions was tallied
for each DV. Example responses meeting this criterion were
“I would try to help the person feel better” (Victim Support —
Emotional), “I would tell the bullying to stop doing it” (Victim
Support — Address Bully), and “I would go and tell a teacher”
(Victim Support — Other).
A sub-set of (non-CATZ) participants was asked these
questions again one week later to assess test–retest reli-
ability. Using the number of responses that indicated desir-
able and appropriate knowledge, reliability was good (all
p < 0.001) for Victim Support — Emotional (r = 0.52), Victim
Support — Address Bully (r = 0.66), and Victim Support —
Other r = 0.67.
Social validity was assessed among a sub-set of CATZ
tutors selected from across the three studies (N = 188), about
a week after they had delivered their CATZ lesson, with
four items: “How much would you like to design and give
another CATZ lesson on something else about bullying?”,
“How much do you think designing and giving a CATZ les-
son is a good way to help students your age learn about bul-
lying?”, “How much do you think CATZ is a good way to
teach younger students about bullying?”, and “How much do
you think other students of your age in other schools would
like to try CATZ?”. They tap key aspects of acceptability,
notably willingness to take part and perceived value (Elliott,
1986). A 1 (“not at all”) to 10 (“a lot”) response scale was
employed. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88, and so a mean Social
Validity score was computed across the four items. High
scores indicate high social validity. A sub-set of participants
(n = 74) were asked these questions again one week later to
assess test–retest reliability and this was found to be high,
r = 0.89, p < 0.001.
The CATZ Interventions andTraining CATZ Tutors
CATZ was developed by the first author. The first author
developed a semi-standardised protocol on the basis of
considerable pilot work and previous evaluation studies of
CATZ and used this to train co-authors to deliver CATZ in
the three studies (“Facilitators” henceforward). The aim was
to ensure relative — but not necessarily homogeneous —
consistency in the way CATZ was delivered to students by
Facilitators across the three studies, as this would mimic the
kind of variation likely to result if CATZ was to be imple-
mented more widely and delivered by teachers themselves
in school communities (Boulton, 2014; Cowie etal., 1994).
This was also made likely because each co-author of this
paper acted as facilitator in only one of the three studies
reported here.
Facilitators encouraged “buy-in” by explaining to CATZ
tutors that taking part was voluntary, they could stop at any
time (and re-join) without giving a reason, and they were
being invited to work in small groups of about five students
to design a (roughly) 30-min anti-bullying lesson and to
deliver it to a small group of students who were two years
younger than themselves. Facilitators stressed that this was
an important task because the LC could help the younger
students learn important things. Facilitators emphasised
that, notwithstanding their responsibility to “educate” the
younger students, tutors might actually enjoy taking part
and themselves learn useful things. Indeed, given that stu-
dents are often resistant to adult-implemented initiatives to
tackle bullying partly because they are perceived as “bor-
ing” (Boulton & Bouloton, 2012), facilitators were asked to
engender a sense of fun and ownership of the lesson among
tutors that complemented their sense of responsibility. Tutors
were informed that facilitators would provide them with the
required lesson content (LC), offer suggestions about how
to plan, test and deliver a lesson on it, but that the details
would be left to them and they could augment that content.
Facilitators aimed to strike a balance between being suitably
supportive on one hand and leaving tutors to take owner-
ship of their lesson on the other. While the final decision on
the lesson itself was left to each group of tutors, facilitators
ensured that as a minimum, they all designed a poster that
contained the LC and prepared a script of what was to be said
and done by each group member during their lesson. This
ensured that the LC was addressed in each of the groups’
lesson. Importantly, at no point did facilitators state or even
imply that they “wanted” the tutors to learn this informa-
tion or that tutors needed to change their bullying-related
knowledge or behaviour. Rather, tutors were reminded that
this was the information they would help the younger tutees
learn via CATZ.
Across the three studies, CATZ tutors received similar
guidance from facilitators and had similar time — about
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
44 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
four 60-min sessions — to prepare their lesson, spread over
2–3weeks. Then, within a few days, they delivered their
lesson. Facilitators and class teachers observed these but
did not take an active role. Facilitator reports confirmed the
integrity, and hence relative consistency, with which they
delivered CATZ to tutors, and in how CATZ tutors delivered
their lesson to tutees. All groups of tutors were seen to take
the task seriously and were judged to have done a good job.
Results
Plan ofAnalysis
Because CATZ tutors were nested into groups, multilevel
modelling was considered. However, we could not use these
analyses because there was some changing of group mem-
bership that violates the assumption of independence across
the different groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2014). Hence, to
determine if CATZ did or did not have statistically signifi-
cant effects on each variable, and to assess if gender was
a moderator, a 2 (Condition) × 2 (or 3 where appropriate)
(Time, repeated measures) × 2 (Gender) mixed analysis of
variance (ANOVA) test was employed, and post hoc tests
were used to identify sub-group differences, with Bonfer-
roni corrections to control for family-wise inflation of type
I errors.
Unlike tests of statistical significance, measures of effect
size (ES) provide information about the practical signifi-
cance of findings and the relative size of an experimental/
intervention effect and allow comparisons across studies
and interventions (Thalheimer & Cook, 2002). Partial eta
squared (η2) was used as the index of ES in the ANOVAs,
but we also calculated the much more widely used (and pos-
sibly understood) Cohen’s d, with 95% confidence intervals.
Cohen (1988) suggested effect sizes 0.20 to.49 be deemed
small, those between 0.50 and 0.79 deemed medium, and
those ≥ 0.80 deemed large. We also report the common lan-
guage ES (McGraw & Wong, 1992) because it expresses
an ES in an easy-to-understand format of a percentage. The
latter represents the probability that any randomly selected
person from one group will have a higher (or lower) value
than any person selected at random from the other group
after the intervention (Grissom & Kim, 2005).
Initial Equivalence oftheCATZ andControl Groups
Independent group t-tests confirmed that on seven out of
the nine outcome measures, CATZ and control groups did
not differ at T1 (t’s < 2.0, all p > 0.05). We now describe the
two exceptions. For Acceptable Verbal, the CATZ group
initially had significantly less desirable scores than controls
(means = 1.53 and 1.20, respectively, t (97) = 2.93, p = 0.004).
Because there was more scope for CATZ participants to
change in a desirable direction, this means it would be easier to
detect a positive effect of CATZ on this measure. However, the
CATZ group initially had significantly more desirable scores
than controls on Victim Support — Emotional (means = 0.38
and 0.04, respectively, t (121) = 3.56, p = 0.001), and this
means it would be more difficult here to detect a positive effect
of CATZ. Thus, for all but one variable (Acceptable Verbal),
there was scope for a “fair/conservative test” of the effects of
CATZ.
Effects ofCATZ onIndividual Measures andTests
ofGender asaModerator
The Condition x Time x Gender interaction was non-significant
for all nine outcome variables, indicating that gender did not
moderate any effects of CATZ. Hence, gender did not feature
in any results we now go on to report concerning these nine
outcome variables.
Descriptive data, summaries of Condition x Time inter-
action effects, and comparisons between CATZ and con-
trol participants at each assessment are given in Table1.
Across time comparisons (repeated measures t-tests) for
CATZ participants are shown in Table2. For all outcome
measures, the Condition x Time interaction was signifi-
cant. Using Cohen’s (1988) scheme, partial η2 ESs were
low (< 0.06) for Acceptable Exclusion; medium (0.06 to
0.138) on four measures, Harmful Exclusion, Victim Sup-
port — Emotional, Victim Support — Address Bully, and
Victim Support — Other; and high (> 0.138) on four meas-
ures, Harmful Verbal, Acceptable Verbal, Wanted Help,
and When to Tell. With only one exception, involving
Acceptable Exclusion at T2, CATZ participants had sig-
nificantly more desirable scores than controls at T2 and at
T3 on all variables. On none of the nine measures did con-
trol participants evidence a significant change in a posi-
tive direction from T1 to T2 or T1 to T3, but this was the
case for all measures among the CATZ groups (Table2).
On the two study 2 measures with follow-up data
(Wanted Help and When to Tell), T3 scores were signifi-
cantly less desirable than at T2 among CATZ participants.
Effect Sizes
Table3 contains ESs for the nine outcome measures. In all
cases, confidence intervals for Cohen’s d did not contain
zero, mirroring the ANOVA results reported above that indi-
cated an effect of CATZ. For T1 to T2 changes, values of d
were between “low” (0.2) and “medium” (0.5) for Harmful
Exclusion (0.44) and Acceptable Exclusion (0.49); between
“medium” and “high” (0.8) for Victim Support — Other (0.64),
Victim Support — Emotional (0.68), and Victim Support
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
45International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
— Address Bully (0.79); and “high” plus for Harmful Verbal
(0.83), Acceptable Verbal (0.95), When to Tell (1.51), and
Wanted Help (1.57).
The common language ESs for the nine outcome meas-
ures indicated that there was between a 62% and an 87%
(mean = 72.4%) probability that any randomly selected
CATZ participant would have a more desirable T1 to T2
change score than any randomly selected control participant.
For T1 to T3 changes (study 2), values of d were “high”
plus for Wanted Help (1.13) and When to Tell (1.14). The
common language ESs indicated that there was a 79%
probability that any randomly selected CATZ participant
would have a more desirable T1 to T3 change score than
any randomly selected control participant for both of these
variables.
Social Validity
Overall, the mean social validity score was 8.6 on a 1–10
scale, with relatively little variability (standard devia-
tion = 0.9), and 68.1% of participants scored 8 or above, a
reasonable criterion for “high”. The minimum score was
6.25. Social validity did not differ significantly between girls
and boys, t (186) = 0.03.
Discussion
The main aim of this study was to investigate the effect of
the relatively new CATZ co-operative cross-age teaching
intervention on diverse bullying-related beliefs variables
measured in three separate studies. With very few excep-
tions, results indicated that CATZ did have a positive effect.
On eight out of nine measures, not Acceptable Exclusion,
CATZ participants had significantly more desirable scores
than controls at T2, despite this not being the case at T1.
Moreover, CATZ participants showed significant improve-
ments from T1 to T2 on all measures, whereas controls did
not change for the better on any measure. On the two meas-
ures with follow-up data in study 2, Wanted Help and When
to Tell, the T3 scores were significantly more desirable than
at T1 among CATZ participants, but did not change in that
direction among controls.
Cohen’s d ESs for the effects of CATZ were between
“low” and “medium” for Harmful Exclusion and Accept-
able Exclusion; between “medium” and “high” for Victim
Support — Other, Victim Support — Emotional, and Vic-
tim Support — Address Bully; and “high” plus for Harm-
ful Verbal, Acceptable Verbal, When to Tell, and Wanted
Help. The common language ESs for the nine outcome
measures indicated that there was between a 62% and an
87% (mean = 72.4%) probability that any randomly selected
Table 1 Mean (and standard deviation) scores of the individual studies, results of t-tests to compare CATZ and controls at each time, and condition × time interaction effects
More desirable scores are low in study 1 and high in studies 2 and 3
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Study Measure Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time x condition interaction
CATZ Control CATZ Control CATZ Control Wilks FPartial
eta
squared
1 Harmful Exclusion 2.25 (.98) 2.54 (.93) 1.58 (.76) 2.30 (.93)*** .95 (1, 95) = 5.48* .06
Harmful Verbal 2.02 (.73) 2.16 (.93) 1.30 (.53) 2.09 (1.03)*** .86 (1, 95) = 15.28*** .14
Acceptable Exclusion 1.75 (.76) 1.48 (.73) 1.32 (.61) 1.34 (.53) .96 (1, 95) = 3.99* .04
Acceptable Verbal 1.53 (.60) 1.20 (.46)** 1.12 (.39) 1.36 (.65)* .79 (1, 95) = 24.35*** .20
2 Wanted Help .56 (.57) 57 (.66) 2.01 (1.46) .44 (.68)*** 1.51 (1.23) .43 (.67)*** .65 (2, 184) = 50.46*** .35
When to Tell .77 (.73) .78 (.75) 2.05 (.97) .86 (.76)*** 1.63 (1.05) .70 (.73)*** .66 (2, 184) = 46.70*** .34
3Victim Support — Emotional .38 (.63) .04 (.20)** 1.28 (1.36) .30 (.59)*** .93 (1, 121) = 9.83** .08
Victim Support — Address Bully .49 (.66) .38 (.64) 1.25 (.93) .49 (.65)*** .89 (1, 121) = 15.76*** .12
Victim Support — Other .47 (.72) .53 (.62) 1.09 (1.09) .53 (.65)*** .93 (1, 121) = 8.62** .07
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
46 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
CATZ participant would have a more desirable T1 to T2
change score than any randomly selected control participant.
Summarising this aspect of our findings, the mostly medium
or high ESs indicate that CATZ is likely to have noteworthy
practical benefits for those who experience it.
The latter contention is endorsed by our other finding
that the positive effect of CATZ was equally evident among
girls and boys, and so the practical recommendations we
offer below appear to be relevant to both. Positive effects
of CATZ on boys are especially encouraging given that
they have been found to score in a less desirable manner on
a range of bullying related variables than girls; boys tend
to disclose being bullied less than girls (Boulton, 2005;
Hunter etal., 2004), are less likely to intervene in bullying
and support the victim (Gini etal., 2008; Macaulay etal.,
2019), and often see bullying as less serious (Maunder
etal., 2010; Molluzzo & Lawler, 2012). We have shown
that all of these beliefs can be addressed via CATZ and
hence suggest that a wider implementation of the interven-
tion would be beneficial within school. Benefits may extend
beyond the students who hold more positive beliefs. For
example, the covert nature of relational bullying introduces
challenges for teachers to identify and support recipients
of it and CATZ offers useful strategies that they can use to
ask adults for help.
After experiencing CATZ, a sub-set of our participants
(N = 188) were asked to rate it for acceptability and per-
ceived value, and over two-thirds had very high scores, 8
or above on a 1–10 scale. Again, gender differences were
not evident. It is encouraging that boys were as open as
girls to engaging in CATZ, given that the former tend to
be less enthusiastic towards other forms of peer support,
broadly defined (Boulton, 2005; Cowie, 2000; Cowie
etal., 2002; Peterson & Rigby, 1999). What it is about
CATZ that appeals to students, especially boys, is wor-
thy of study. Collectively, our findings of effectiveness
and social validity provide strong support for CATZ as an
anti-bullying intervention targeted at “improving” beliefs.
Schools have many issues to deal with besides bully-
ing, and “short but effective” interventions will likely be
taken up more widely (Boulton, 2014). CATZ appears to
meet this criterion, and future studies could explore how
schools might incorporate CATZ into their wider anti-
bullying efforts. Importantly, positive effects of CATZ
Table 2 Across time
comparisons (repeated measures
t-tests) for CATZ participants
Table shows t-values. A negative value indicates a non-desirable change (see text for explanation)
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Study Measure Time 1–time 2 Time 1–time 3 Time 2–time 3
1 Harmful Exclusion 4.67***
Harmful Verbal 6.16***
Acceptable Exclusion 4.64***
Acceptable Verbal 5.26***
2 Wanted Help 11.15*** 7.83*** − 5.77***
When to Tell 12.64*** 7.42*** − 5.76***
3Victim Support — Emotional 5.94***
Victim Support — Address Bully 6.80***
Victim Support — Other 3.98***
Table.3 Cohen’s d and common language effect sizes of individual studies
Table values are time 1 to time 2 effect sizes (time 1 to time 3 in brackets)
Study DV n CATZ n Control Cohen’s d d 95% CI Common lan-
guage effect
size
1 Harmful Exclusion 55 44 .44 0.04, 0.84 .62
Harmful Verbal 55 44 .83 0.42, 1.25 .72
Acceptable Exclusion 55 44 .49 0.09, 0.89 .64
Acceptable Verbal 55 44 .95 0.53, 1.37 .75
2 Wanted Help 106 (101) 91 (88) 1.57 (1.13) 1.25, 1.89 (.82, 1.43) .87 (.79)
When to Tell 106 (101) 91 (88) 1.51 (1.14) 1.19, 1.82 (.83, 1.44) .86 (.79)
3Victim Support — Emotional 76 47 .68 0.31, 1.05 .68
Victim Support — Address Bully 76 47 .79 0.41, 1.17 .71
Victim Support — Other 76 47 .64 0.26, 1.01 .67
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
47International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
were found across the three studies, each of which were
delivered by different facilitators. This is encouraging
as for a more widespread school-level implementation of
CATZ; different teachers will be acting as facilitators for
the CATZ intervention and providing the learning content
for the tutors to rework into a viable lesson to be delivered
to younger tutees. One important aspect of any intervention
implementation is the fiscal stability of resources needed
for an effective outcome (Forman etal., 2009). Further-
more, to avoid replication failures, the training of imple-
menters to run an intervention scheme needs to be feasible
(Kumpfer etal., 2020). A helpful thing about CATZ is that
teachers could easily be trained to act as facilitators for
the CATZ sessions, which would in turn reduce the costs
involved running the intervention. As schools have many
different budgetary constraints which impact their decision
to participate in an intervention scheme (Boulton, 2014),
CATZ offers them a cost-effective way to enhance male and
female students’ anti-bullying beliefs.
An important caveat for any enthusiasm for CATZ is that
our follow-up data in study 2 showed that some of the gains
were lost from T2 to T3. Nevertheless, T3 scores among
CATZ participants were still significantly more desirable
than T1 scores on the two relevant variables. Whether these
“losses” can be eliminated with more CATZ experiences is a
worthy issue for future studies. That this is a realistic possi-
bility is suggested by research on memory and consolidation
of learning which highlights the benefits of “extra” time and
experience with learning material (McGaugh, 2000).
Cross-national research has shown variations in bullying-
related variables (Boulton etal., 1999; Menesini etal., 1997)
that could influence how receptive children are to CATZ
and how much of a dose might be required. Researchers are
beginning to test if CATZ can have similarly positive effects
on students in different countries, and though early results
are encouraging (Marx, 2018), more studies are clearly
warranted. The same is true for age since we only studied
upper primary school age students here. While CATZ has
been shown to improve bullying-related beliefs among high
school students (Boulton & Boulton, 2017), researchers would
do well to examine the effectiveness and social validity as a
function of age.
In evaluating this work, our three studies met four out of
six criteria identified as important in intervention evalua-
tions by Durlak etal. (1991); sample size exceeded 30 in
each group, random assignment (at the class level) and
intent-to-treat design were employed, and all pre-test post-
test comparisons are reported. However, no blinded out-
comes were recorded in any study, and an attention-only
control condition was employed only in studies 1 and 2.
Future studies should strive to meet the latter two crite-
ria, but they are difficult to achieve in practice; many of
our participants made spontaneous comments about their
experiences of CATZ during data collection that would
compromise blind testing, and teachers were reluctant to
“waste time” on an attention-only placebo. Indeed, most
teachers only agreed to take part in our studies if there was
a “proper” intervention. Wait-list control methods offer a
solution, but they are more disruptive and require extra
time that schools are often unable to provide. Our finding
from study 3 that CATZ had positive effects on beliefs that
were not evident among children who experienced a direct
attempt to change those beliefs via a lesson may help con-
vince more schools that CATZ is a “proper” intervention.
It must also be noted that different variables were assessed
in the three studies, and that some of the effects found are
therefore based from a relatively small sample size.
While seeking to explain the oft-found discrepancy
between attitudes and behaviour, Ajzen (1991) proposed
the theory of planned behaviour which is the modified
version of an earlier model, the theory of reasoned action
(Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The theory has been employed
by researchers largely to investigate the impact of moti-
vational factors on intentions to act and behaviour per
se. Theorists believe that actors’ behavioural intentions
are the most immediate predictors of behaviour (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980) and that attitude towards the behav-
iour, perceived subjective norm, and perceived control
over the behaviour also play a role (Ajzen, 1991). While a
strong case can be made for studying the kinds of beliefs/
knowledge variables included in our three studies, not
least because they are thought to influence actual bul-
lying-related behaviour (Boulton etal., 2002; Boulton
etal., 2001; Boulton etal., 2002; Salmivalli & Voeten,
2004), the fact that we did not assess the effects of CATZ
on any behavioural measure per se can be considered a
limitation. As such, future research should endeavour to
explore the components of theory of planned behaviour
in the context of the CATZ intervention. For example, in
the context of bystander behaviour, if bystanders do not
know what do to when they witness bullying, CATZ can
be used to promote knowledge on what strategies they can
use. In other words, if we can promote positive attitudes
on acting as a positive bystander, via CATZ, we can work
to promote intentions to act the behaviour to combat bul-
lying. In addition, interesting questions about the role of
changes in the types of cognitions we studied as mediators
of the effects of CATZ on actual behaviour arise out of
our work and provide fruitful avenues to address in the
future.
Our study is also limited by its focus on what might be
described as rather “unintentional” beliefs about bullying
as opposed to “intentional” beliefs more directly related to
perpetrating bullying and/or intervening in a supportive way,
such as “I believe I have a duty to help someone being bul-
lied and I will do so if I see it taking place”. Hence, future
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
48 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
studies would do well to extend the range of beliefs exam-
ined that might improve following experience of CATZ.
That our dependent variables were (i) all single items, (ii)
not from established measures, and (iii) high in social valid-
ity mean that it is possible that some of our results could
be attributable to social desirability effects. Future studies
would do well to address these limitations. However, that
it would be a mistake to dismiss the entire set of results
reported here as mere artifacts of social desirability is sug-
gested by the facts that scores were not uniformly high at T1
and that at T2 and T3 scores improved among CATZ but not
control participants.
Another aspect of our study that could limit the extent
to which our results can be generalised is the fact that the
CATZ facilitators, although different in each of the three
studies, were nevertheless all trained by the same person.
Hence, it remains possible that some of the positive effects
found could be attributable to them and how they worked
with the children rather than to CATZ itself. Future studies
that involved diverse facilitators trained by other people are
clearly warranted to rule out this possibility and at the very
least the current study provides an empirical rationale for
such a body of work.
In sum, with very few exceptions, the evidence from
three separate studies suggests that CATZ can help students
acquire important and diverse bullying-related knowledge.
Unlike some other teacher-led interventions, students appear
very receptive to it. While we need more research to under-
stand how its effects may be maximised, and how effective
it might be with other groups and with other facets of bul-
lying-related beliefs, our findings support the wider take-up
of CATZ as part of schools’ efforts to tackle the pervasive
problem of bullying.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Arseneault, L. (2017). The long-term impact of bullying victimization
on mental health. World Psychiatry, 16(1), 27.
Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimiza-
tion in youths and mental health problems: ‘much ado about
nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 40(5), 717.
Azjen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predict-
ing social behavior. Prentice Hall.
Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Chowne, A. (2007). Improving the effec-
tiveness of collaborative group work in primary schools: Effects
on science attainment. British Educational Research Journal, 33,
663–680. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01411 92070 15822 31
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Evaluation of an interven-
tion program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in
schools. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the Interna-
tional Society for Research on Aggression, 30(1), 1–15.
Beckman, L., & Svensson, M. (2015). The cost-effectiveness of the
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Results from a model-
ling study. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 127–137.
Berger, C., Poteat, V. P., & Dantas, J. (2019). Should I report? The
role of general and sexual orientation-specific bullying policies
and teacher behavior on adolescents’ reporting of victimiza-
tion experiences. Journal of School Violence, 18(1), 107–120.
Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual
Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.
Blatchford, P., Baines, E., Rubie-Davies, C., Bassett, P., & Chowne,
A. (2006). The effect of a new approach to group work on
pupil-pupil and teacher-pupil interactions. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 98, 750–765.
Boulton, M. J. (2005). School peer counselling for bullying services
as a source of social support: An interview study with second-
ary school pupils. British Journal of Guidance and Counsel-
ling, 33, 485–494.
Boulton, M. J. (2013). The effects of victim of bullying reputation
on adolescents’ choice of friends: Mediation by fear of becom-
ing a victim, moderation by victim status, and implications
for befriending interventions. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 114, 146–60.
Boulton, M. J. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness
beliefs, and reported use of cognitive-behavioral approaches to
bullying among pupils: Effects of in-service training with the I
DECIDE program. Behavior Therapy, 45, 328–343.
Boulton, M. J., & Boulton, R. (2012). Resistant to the message: are
pupils unreceptive to teachers’ anti-bullying initiatives and if
so why?. Educational Studies, 38(5), 485–489.
Boulton, M. J., & Boulton, L. (2017). Modifying self-blame, self-
esteem, and disclosure through a cooperative cross-age teach-
ing intervention for bullying among adolescents. Violence and
Victims, 32(4), 609–626.
Boulton, M. J., Boulton, L., Camerone, E., Down, J., Hughes, J.,
Kirkbride, C., ... & Sanders, J. (2016). Enhancing primary
school children's knowledge of online safety and risks with the
CATZ Cooperative Cross-Age Teaching Intervention: results
from a pilot study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Net-
working, 19(10), 609–614.
Boulton, M. J., Bucci, E., & Hawker, D. D. (1999). Swedish and Eng-
lish secondary school pupils' attitudes towards, and concep-
tions of, bullying: Concurrent links with bully/victim involve-
ment. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 40(4), 277–284.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.404127
Boulton, M. J., Karellou, J., Lanitis, I., Manoussou, V., & Lemoni,
O. (2001). Bullying and victimization in Greek primary school
pupils: Linkages between attitudes and self-reported involve-
ment. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological
Society, 8, 12–29.
Boulton, M. J., Murphy, D., Lloyd, J., Besling, S., Coote, J., Lewis,
J., ... & Walsh, L. (2013). Helping counts: Predicting children's
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
49International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
intentions to disclose being bullied to teachers from prior
social support experiences. British Educational Research
Journal, 39(2), 209–221.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M. and Flemington, I. (2002). Associations
between secondary school pupils’ definitions of bullying, atti-
tudes towards bullying, and tendencies to engage in bullying:
Age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28, 353–370.
Boulton, M. J., Trueman, M., & Murray, L. (2008). Associations
between peer victimisation, fear of future victimisation and dis-
rupted classroom concentration among junior school pupils. Brit-
ish Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 473–489.
Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bul-
lying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences
between students and school staff. School Psychology Review,
36(3), 361–382.
Caravita, S., Di Blasio, P., & Salmivalli, C. (2009). Unique and inter-
active effects of empathy and social status on involvement in
bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163.
Chen, L. M., Cheng, W., & Ho, H. C. (2015). Perceived severity of
school bullying in elementary schools based on participants’
roles. Educational Psychology, 35(4), 484–496.
Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural
sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffer-
ing hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310.
Coleman, P. K., & Byrd, C. P. (2003). Interpersonal correlates of peer
victimization among young adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 32(4), 301–314.
Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013).
Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by
peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70, 419–
426. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jamap sychi atry. 2013. 504
Cowan, R. J., & Sheridan, S. M. (2003). Investigating the acceptability
of behavioral interventions in applied conjoint behavioral con-
sultation: Moving from analog conditions to naturalistic settings.
School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 1–21.
Cowie, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: Gender issues in cop-
ing with bullying in English schools. Aggressive Behavior, 26,
85–97.
Cowie, H. (2011). Peer support as an intervention to counteract school
bullying: Listen to the children. Children & Society, 25(4),
287–292.
Cowie, H., & Myers, C. A. (Eds.). (2017).School bullying and mental
health: Risks, intervention and prevention. Routledge. London,
UK; ISBN 978–1–134–97743–7
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P., & SMITH, P. K.
(2002). Knowledge, use of and attitudes towards peer support: a
2-year follow-up to the Prince's Trust survey. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 25(5), 453–467.
Cowie, H., Smith, P. K., Boulton, M. J., & Lava, R. (1994). Coopera-
tion in the multi-ethnic classroom: The impact of cooperative
group work on social relationships in middle schools. David
Fulton.
Cunningham, C. E., Mapp, C., Rimas, H., Cunningham, L., Mielko,
S., Vaillancourt, T., & Marcus, M. (2016). What limits the effec-
tiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the
perspective of students. Psychology of Violence, 6(4), 596.
Ditch the Label. (2018). The Annual Bullying Survey. Retrieved from
https:// www. ditch thela bel. org/ wpcon tent/ uploa ds/ 2018/ 06/ The-
Annual- Bully ing- Survey- 2018-2. pdf
Durlak, J. A., Fuhrman, T., & Lampman, C. (1991). Effectiveness of
cognitive-behavior therapy for maladapting children: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 204–214.
Eliot, M., Cornell, D., Gregory, A., & Fan, X. (2010). Supportive
school climate and student willingness to seek help for bullying
and threats of violence. Journal of School Psychology, 48(6),
533–553.
Elliott, S. L. (1986). Children’s ratings of the acceptability of classroom
interventions for misbehavior: Findings and methodological con-
siderations. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 23–35.
Evans, C. B., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effective-
ness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic
review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 532–544.
Foody, M., Samara, M., & O’Higgins Norman, J. (2020). Bullying by
siblings and peers: Poly-setting victimization and the associa-
tion with problem behaviours and depression. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 90, 138–157.
Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka,
N. (2009). Evidence-based interventions in schools: Develop-
ers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School
Mental Health, 1(1), 26.
Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the
effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally:
A meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention,
1(1), 14–31.
Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of
adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior
in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 93–105.
Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad
practical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research
on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-
analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 41, 441–455.
Hawker, D.S.J., and Boulton, M.J. (2001). Subtypes of peer harass-
ment and their correlates: A social dominance perspective. In
J. Juvonen and S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school:
The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (New York: Guilford
Press).
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2019). Connecting adolescent suicide
to the severity of bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of School
Violence, 18(3), 333–346.
Houlston, C., & Smith, P. K. (2009). The impact of a peer counsel-
ling scheme to address bullying in an all-girl London secondary
school: A short-term longitudinal study. British Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 79, 69–86.
Hunter, S. C., Boyle, J. M., & Warden, D. (2004). Help-seeking
amongst child and adolescent victims of peer aggression and bul-
lying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 375–390.
Jacobsen, K. E., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School
counselors’ responses to three types of bullying incidents.Pro-
fessional School Counseling,11(1), 2156759X0701100101.
Karcher, M. J. (2009). The cross-age mentoring program: A develop-
mental intervention for promoting students’ connectedness across
grade levels. Professional School Counseling, 12, 292–299.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nation-
wide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for Grades 1–9.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 796–805.
Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., &
Salmivalli, C. (2011b). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-
bullying program. Child Development, 82, 311–330. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 8624. 2010. 01557.x
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for devi-
ant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13,
259–273.
Kumpfer, K. L., Scheier, L. M., & Brown, J. (2020). Strategies to avoid
replication failure with evidence-based prevention interventions:
Case examples from the strengthening families program. Evalu-
ation & the Health Professions, 43(2), 75–89.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
50 International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
Longmore, R. J., & Worrell, M. (2007). Do we need to challenge
thoughts in cognitive behavior therapy? Clinical Psychology
Review, 27, 173–187.
Macaulay, P. J., Betts, L. R., Stiller, J., & Kellezi, B. (2018). Percep-
tions and responses towards cyberbullying: A systematic review
of teachers in the education system. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 43, 1–12.
Macaulay, P. J., Boulton, M. J., & Betts, L. R. (2019). Comparing early
adolescents’ positive bystander responses to cyberbullying and
traditional bullying: The impact of severity and gender. Journal
of Technology in Behavioral Science, 4(3), 253–261.
Macaulay, P. J., Steer, O. L., & Betts, L. R. (2020). Factors leading to
cyber victimization. In Emerging Cyber Threats and Cognitive
Vulnerabilities (pp. 1–25). Academic Press.
Marx, H. (2018). Children’s Decisions to Support Victims of Bully-
ing: Friend and Peer Influences and the Effects of a Cross-Age
Teaching of Social Issues Intervention.
Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., & Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff
perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: Comparing behav-
ioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educational
Research, 52(3), 263–282.
McDaniel, S. C., & Besnoy, K. D. (2019). Cross-age peer mentoring for
elementary students with behavioral and academic risk factors.
Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 63(3), 254–258.
McGaugh, J. L. (2000). Memory: A century of consolidation. Sci-
ence, 287, 248–251. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 287. 5451.
248
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992). A common language effect size
statistic. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 361–365. https:// doi. org/
10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 111.2. 361
Menesini, E., Eslea, M., Smith, P. K., Genta, M. L., Giannetti, E.,
Fonzi, A., & Costabile, A. (1997). Cross-national comparison
of children’s attitudes towards bully/victim problems in school.
Aggressive Behavior, 23, 245–257.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state
of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health &
Medicine, 22(sup1), 240–253.
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008).
How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A
meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quar-
terly, 23, 26–42.
Midgett, A., & Doumas, D. M. (2019). Witnessing bullying at school:
The association between being a bystander and anxiety and
depressive symptoms. School Mental Health, 11(3), 454–463.
Molluzzo, J. C., & Lawler, J. (2012). A study of the perceptions of col-
lege students on cyberbullying. Information Systems Education
Journal, 10(4), 84.
Nadler, A. (1998). Relationship, esteem, and achievement perspec-
tives on autonomous and dependent help seeking. In S. A.
Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for
learning and teaching (pp. 61–95). Erlbaum.
Newman, R. S., & Murray, B. J. (2005). How students and teachers
view the seriousness of peer harassment: When is it appropriate
to seek help? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 347–365.
O’Donnell, A. M., & O’Kelly, J. (1994). Learning from peers: Beyond
the rhetoric of positive results. Educational Psychology Review,
6, 321–349.
Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘tell-
ing.’ Oxford Review of Education, 33(1), 71–86.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we
can do. Blackwell.
Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important
challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 751–780.
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation
and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(1), 124.
Peterson, L., & Rigby, K. (1999). Countering bullying at an Australian
secondary school with students as helpers. Journal of Adoles-
cence, 22, 481–492.
Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-
analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects
on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review,
41, 47–65.
Przybylski, A. K., & Bowes, L. (2017). Cyberbullying and adolescent
well-being in England: A population-based cross-sectional study.
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 1(1), 19–26.
Rigby, K., & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students
collaborating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and
conflict in schools. Educational Psychology, 23, 535–546.
Rivers, I. (2012). Morbidity among bystanders of bullying behavior at
school: Concepts, concerns, and clinical/research issues. Inter-
national Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24, 11–16.
Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer
victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-
analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(4),
244–252.
Robinson, D. R., Schofield, J. W., & Steers-Wentzell, K. L. (2005).
Peer and cross-age tutoring in math: Outcomes and their design
implications. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 327–362.
Rock, P. F., & Baird, J. A. (2012). Tell the teacher or tell the bully off:
Children’s strategy production for bystanders to bullying. Social
Development, 21, 414–424.
Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 15, 112–120.
Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen,
A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their
relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior: Offi-
cial Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression,
22(1), 1–15.
Salmivalli, C., & Voeten, M. (2004). Connections between attitudes,
group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 246–258. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1080/ 01650 25034 40004 88
Shute, R., Owens, L., & Slee, P. (2008). Everyday victimization of
adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggres-
sion? Sex Roles, 58(7–8), 477–489.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achieve-
ment: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 21, 43–69.
Smith, P. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, types, causes, consequences
and intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
10(9), 519–532.
Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bully-
ing: Findings from a survey in English schools after a decade of
research and action. Childhood, 7(2), 193–212.
Steer, O. L., Macaulay, P. J., & Betts, L. R. (2020). Understanding child
and adolescent cyberbullying. InWright, M., Schiamberg. L.,
eds., Child and Adolescent Online Risk Exposure: An Ecological
Perspective (pp. 69–96). Academic Press.
Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics.
Harlow: Pearson Education.
Thalheimer , W. , & Cook , S. ( 2002 ). How to calculate effect sizes
from published research articles: A simplified methodology.
Retrieved from Work Learning Research website: http:// work-
learn ing. com/ effect_ sizes. htm
Thompson, F. & Smith, P. K. (2011). The use and effectiveness of anti-
bullying strategies in schools. DFE-RR098.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
51International Journal of Bullying Prevention (2023) 5:38–51
1 3
Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., Elmelid, R., Johansson, A., & Mellander,
E. (2020). Standing up for the victim or supporting the bully?
Bystander responses and their associations with moral disen-
gagement, defender self-efficacy, and collective efficacy.Social
Psychology of Education, 1–19.
Thurston, A., Van de Keere, K., Topping, K. J., Kosack, W., Gatt, S.,
Marchal, J., etal. (2007). Peer learning in primary school sci-
ence: Theoretical perspectives and implications for classroom
practice. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychol-
ogy, 5, 477–496.
Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (1998). Peer-Assisted Learning (pp.
27–43). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Topping, K. J., Miller, D., Murray, P., Henderson, S., Fortuna, C., &
Conlin, N. (2011). Outcomes in a randomised controlled trial of
mathematics tutoring. Educational Research, 53, 51–63.
Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based pro-
grams to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.
Tzani-Pepelasi, C., Ioannou, M., Synnott, J., & McDonnell, D. (2019).
Peer support at schools: The Buddy Approach as a prevention
and intervention strategy for school bullying. International Jour-
nal of Bullying Prevention, 1(2), 111–123.
Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2004). Middle school victims of bul-
lying: Who reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior: Official
Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression,
30(5), 373–388.
Veldman, M. A., Doolaard, S., Bosker, R. J., & Snijders, T. A. B.
(2020). Young children working together. Cooperative learning
effects on group work of children in Grade 1 of primary educa-
tion.Learning and Instruction,67, 101308.
Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to
study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, trans-
parency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 36, 34–43.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). The overlap between cyber-
bullying and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health,
56(5), 483–488.
Watts, G. W., Bryant, D. P., & Carroll, M. L. (2019). Students with
emotional–behavioral disorders as cross-age tutors: A synthesis
of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 44(3), 131–147.
Yeager, D. A., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social psychological interven-
tions in education. They’re Not Magic. Review of Education, 81,
267–301. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00346 54311 405999
Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of
theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowl-
edge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 23, 1–21.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by Peter J. R. Macaulay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Peter J. R. Macaulay on Nov 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
