Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program.
Bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program.
复制标题
学校欺凌：学校干预计划的基本事实和效果。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1994
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Olweus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Olweus
目的：Olweus的这篇论文的目的是回顾研究学校欺凌的文献。方法：作者回顾了挪威和瑞典学校欺凌事件的文献，以及针对欺凌的学校干预计划的评估结果。调查结果/讨论：作者首先定义欺凌和提供一般信息。他将欺凌定义为当一个学生“随着时间的推移反复暴露于一个或多个其他学生的负面行为”（p.1173）。一项研究报告说，在大多数情况下，受害者受到至少两三名学生的骚扰。作者接下来提供了一些关于欺负者/受害者问题的基本事实。在挪威对13万名学生进行的一项研究中，15%的小学和中学/初中学生经常遇到欺凌/受害者问题。研究表明，报告被欺负的学生比例随着年级的升高而下降。研究还表明，欺凌行为是由年龄较大的学生实施的，而受害者则更年轻。趋势似乎是男孩比女孩更容易受到欺凌。然而，女孩更容易受到间接和更微妙形式的欺凌（社会孤立等）。而不是公开攻击在女孩遭受的欺凌中，男孩占了很大一部分。但是，一般来说，男孩更经常是直接欺凌的受害者和肇事者。作者接下来研究了文献揭示的关于欺凌的三个常见神话。作者说，第一个神话是，欺凌是大班和大学校的后果。文学反驳了这一点。接下来，作者报告说，第二个神话是欺凌是竞争和争取成绩的结果。对数据的LISREL分析表明，这是不正确的。最后，作者审查了将受害解释为外部偏差（外表等）造成的神话。但是，作者再次发现，在他所查阅的文献中，没有实证支持这一点。在本文的下一部分，作者研究了典型的受害者特征。研究表明，典型的受害者比其他学生更焦虑，孤独和不安全。受害者的朋友也更少。这种类型的受害者被称为被动或顺从的受害者，其特征是焦虑或顺从的反应模式加上身体虚弱。一个较小的群体，挑衅的受害者，其特点是各种焦虑和侵略性的反应模式。研究还表明，欺凌者的特点是对同龄人的攻击，在某些情况下，对成年人的攻击。他们对暴力有更积极的态度。他们表现出冲动和强烈的支配他人的需求。虽然存在被动欺凌者（参与欺凌但不采取主动的人），但典型的欺凌者被描述为非常具有攻击性和身体强壮。作者接下来确定了四个因素，这些因素在教养和其他可能有助于发展攻击性反应的条件方面很重要：照顾者在早期对孩子的基本情感态度，对孩子攻击性行为的宽容，使用权力自信的儿童养育方法，以及孩子的一般气质。最后，作者确定了一些小组机制，似乎是在工作时，欺负是在群体中：社会传染，削弱控制和抑制剂对攻击性倾向，扩散的责任，并逐步认知变化的看法欺负和受害者。在论文的最后一部分，作者描述了他开发和实施的一项针对学校欺凌的干预计划的评估结果。评估是根据挪威42所小学和中学/初中112个4-7年级班的2 500名学生的数据，对干预方案的效果进行的。这些数据是在项目实施后四个月、一年和两年后收集的。作者陈述了以下结果：（1）在研究的时间段内，欺凌/受害者问题的水平显著降低，（2）聚合的同伴评级变量也得到了类似的降低，（3）没有将欺凌转移到上学前或放学后，（4）一般反社会行为明显减少，（5）改善了学校的社会氛围，（6）学生对学校生活的满意度普遍提高。作者得出结论，上述结果可能主要是实施干预方案的结果。(CSPV摘要-版权所有© 1992-2007由中心的研究和预防暴力，行为科学研究所，科罗拉多大学董事会（Regents of the University of Colorado）KW -蓝图模型参考KW -欺凌预防KW -欺凌干预KW -学校KW -干预计划KW -青少年罪犯KW -儿童罪犯KW -欺凌罪犯KW -学校暴力KW -挪威KW -瑞典KW -美国以外的国家KW -欺凌受害者KW -受害者特征KW -犯罪者特征KW -儿童受害者KW -青少年受害者KW -暴力干预KW -计划评估KW -计划有效性KW -受害者特征KW -儿童暴力KW -青少年暴力KW -文献综述KW -预防计划KW -青少年欺凌KW -儿童欺凌KW -青少年早期KW -儿童晚期KW -小学生KW -初中生KW -4年级KW -5年级KW -6年级KW -7年级Language：en
VioLit Summary: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper by Olweus was to review the literature that examined bullying in school. METHODOLOGY: The author reviewed both literature dealing with the incidence of bullying in schools in Norway and Sweden and the results of an evaluation of a school intervention program aimed at bullying. FINDINGS/DISCUSSION: The author began by defining bullying and supplying general information. He defined bullying as being when a student is "exposed repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students" (p.1173). In one study, it was reported that in the majority of cases, the victim is harassed by a group of at least two or three students. The author next supplied some basic facts about bully/victim problems. In a Norwegian study of 130,000 students, 15% of students in elementary and secondary/junior high school were involved in bully/victim problems on a regular basis. The studies showed that the percentage of students who reported being bullied decreased with higher grade levels. The studies also showed that bullying was carried out by older students, while victims were younger. The trend appeared to be that boys were more exposed to bullying than girls. However, girls were more exposed to indirect and more subtle forms of bullying (social isolation, etc...) than to bullying with open attack. Boys carried out a large portion of the bullying to which girls were subjected. But, in general, boys were more often both victims and perpetrators of direct bullying. The author next looked at what the literature revealed about three common myths about bullying. The author stated that the first myth is that bullying is a consequence of large classes and schools. The literature refuted this. Next, the author reported that the second myth is that bullying is a consequence of competition and striving for grades. LISREL analysis of the data showed that this was not correct. Finally, the author examined the myth that explained victimization as caused by external deviation (physical appearance, etc...). But, once again, the author found no empirical support of this in the literature he reviewed. In the next section of the paper, the author examined typical victim characteristics. Studies showed that typical victims were more anxious, lonely, and insecure than other students. Victims also had fewer friends. This type of victim was called a passive or submissive victim, characterized by an anxious or submissive reaction pattern combined with physical weakness. A smaller group, provocative victims, were characterized by a variety of both anxious and aggressive reaction patterns. The studies also revealed that bullies were characterized by aggression toward both their peers and, in some cases, adults. They had more positive attitudes toward violence. They expressed impulsivity and a strong need to dominate others. Although passive bullies exist (people who participate in bullying but do not take the initiative), typical bullies were described as being very aggressive and physically strong. The author next identified four factors that have been found to be important in terms of the upbringing and other conditions that were present that may have been conducive to the development of an aggressive reaction: basic emotional attitude of the caretaker(s) toward the child during the early years, permissiveness towards aggressive behavior by the child, use of power-assertive child rearing practices, and the general temperament of the child. Finally, the author identified some group mechanisms that appear to be at work when bullying is done in groups: social contagion, weakening of the controls and inhibitors against aggressive tendencies, diffusion of responsibility, and gradual cognitive changes in the perceptions of bullying and the victim. In the last section of the paper, the author described results of an evaluation of an intervention program he developed and implemented against bullying in school. The evaluation was on the effects of an intervention program based on data from 2,500 students belonging to 112 grade 4-7 classes in 42 primary and secondary/junior high schools in Norway. The data was collected four months after the introduction of the program and then one year and two years later. The author stated the following results(1) marked reductions in levels of bully/victim problems for the time periods studied, (2) similar reductions obtained for the aggregated peer rating variables, (3) no displacement of bullying to before or after school, (4) clear reduction in general antisocial behavior, (5) improved social climate of the school, and (6) increased student satisfaction with school life in general. The author concluded that the above results were likely to be mainly a consequence of the intervention program implemented. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado) KW - Blueprints Model Reference KW - Bullying Prevention KW - Bullying Intervention KW - School Based KW - Intervention Program KW - Juvenile Offender KW - Child Offender KW - Bully Offender KW - School Violence KW - Norway KW - Sweden KW - Countries Other Than USA KW - Bully Victim KW - Victim Characteristics KW - Offender Characteristics KW - Child Victim KW - Juvenile Victim KW - Violence Intervention KW - Program Evaluation KW - Program Effectiveness KW - Victim Characteristics KW - Child Violence KW - Juvenile Violence KW - Literature Review KW - Prevention Program KW - Juvenile Bully KW - Child Bully KW - Early Adolescence KW - Late Childhood KW - Elementary School Student KW - Junior High School Student KW - Grade 4 KW - Grade 5 KW - Grade 6 KW - Grade 7 Language: en
反社会男孩的表现模型。
DOI：
10.1037//0003-066x.41.4.432
发表时间：
1986
期刊：
The American psychologist
影响因子：
--
作者：
Patterson,GR
通讯作者：
Patterson,GR
儿童反社会行为的治疗：现状和未来方向。
影响因子：
22.4
作者：
Kazdin,AE
通讯作者：
Kazdin,AE