Cited by 333Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionWorkplace Violence and BullyingSchool Health and Nursing Education

What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components

Open access
Gaffney, Hannah, Ttofi, Maria M., Farrington, David P.·2021·Journal of School Psychology

Abstract

Previous research has shown that many school-based anti-bullying programs are effective. A prior meta-analysis (Gaffney, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2019) found that intervention programs are effective in reducing school-bullying perpetration by approximately 19-20% and school-bullying victimization by approximately 15-16%. Using data from this prior meta-analysis, the aim of the current study was to examine the relationship between effectiveness estimates and specific elements of anti-bullying programs. Specific intervention components in line with a socio-ecological framework were coded as present or absent. Components were coded on the following levels: school, classroom, teacher, parent, peer, individual, and intervention. Meta-analytical subgroup comparisons analogous to ANOVA were computed to examine the relationship between the presence of specific components and the effectiveness in reducing bullying perpetration (n = 82) and victimization (n = 86). Results indicated that the presence of a number of intervention components (e.g., whole-school approach, anti-bullying policies, classroom rules, information for parents, informal peer involvement, and work with victims) were significantly associated with larger effect sizes for school-bullying perpetration outcomes. The presence of informal peer involvement and information for parents were associated with larger effect sizes for school-bullying victimization outcomes. Meta-regression analyses showed no significant relationship between effectiveness and the number of intervention components included in a program. The present report contributes to the understanding of 'what works' in reducing school-bullying perpetration and victimization. The impact of these findings on future anti-bullying research is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.002

Cites

169 of 169 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Gaffney, Hannah
Venue
Journal of School Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
85
Pages
37-56
ISSN
0022-4405 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3128770340
Cited by
333
References
169
Citations by year
2026: 60 · 2025: 90 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 18
FWCI
7.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of School Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Apollo
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • Jacobs Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Workplace Violence and Bullying
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
bullying prevention programs, school bullying, bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, intervention components, socio-ecological framework, whole-school approach, anti-bullying policy, classroom rules, parent information, victim support, program effectiveness
MeSH terms
Humans, Parents, Peer Group, Schools, Crime Victims, Bullying

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review