1

KiVa: A research-based antibullying program

Professor Christina Salmivalli

University of Turku, Finland

2

Bullying

• A widely used definition: Systematic aggressive

behavior against a person who finds it difficult to

defend him/herself against the perpetrator(s)

– Repeated attacks and power differential are

central features

Bullying takes many forms

• Verbal (name-calling, mocking or ridiculing)

• Physical (pushing, shoving, hitting)

• Indirect (manipulating other group members so that

they start avoiding the victim, spreading rumors,

excluding the victim from the group).

• Can also happen online (cyberbullying)

Bullying

• Rather than consisting of single attacks, bullying

represents a rather stable relationship further

embedded in the larger peer setting

• Universal phenomenon; about 10% of children

and adolescents worldwide are systematic

victims

4

5

KiVa antibullying program

• School-based program for bullying prevention and

intervention

• The meaning of ”KiVa”

• Developed at the University of Turku with funding

from the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture

– Program co-leaders: Professor Christina Salmivalli

and PhD Elisa Poskiparta

• In Finland, now used by 90% of schools providing

comprehensive education (basic education, grades

1-9)

Background of KiVa

• Bullying as proactive, goal-oriented aggression

• What is the function of bullying?

6

7

The social architecture of bullying

• Bullying can be a strategy to gain status and

power in the peer group...

• …and it is often succesful

bullies are perceived as popular (Caravita,

DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2008)

bullying helps to maintain status (Juvonen &

Galvan, 2008)…

…and to increase status over time (Cillessen &

Borch, 2004)

8

• By choosing victims who are submissive,

insecure of themselves, physically weak and in

a low-power, rejected position in the group...

• ... the bullies can repeatedly demonstrate their

power and renew their high-status position

without being confronted

The social architecture of bullying

9

• The power demonstrations need witnesses

– in most bullying incidents, a group of peers is

present

The social architecture of bullying

10 10

defenders of the victim

outsiders

assistants of the bully

victim

reinforcers of the bully

12%

8%

20%

7%

17%

24% bully

• Participant roles in bullying (Salmivalli et al.,

1996)

The social architecture of bullying

11

The behavior of onlookers does matter

• Individual effects: short and long term

– the defended victims are better adjusted than the

undefended ones (Sainio, Veenstra, Huitsing, &

Salmivalli, 2010)

– the most negative memory related to bullying is

often ”no-one cared” (Teräsahjo & Salmivalli,

2000)

12

The behavior of onlookers does matter

• Classroom effects:

– More frequent bullying in classrooms where bullies are reinforced by many students (Salmivalli, Voeten & Poskiparta, 2011)

13

In order to reduce bullying...

• Influencing the behavior of bystanders can reduce the

rewards gained by the bullies and consequently, their

motivation to bully in the first place

• However, the victims need to feel that they are heard and

helped by the adults at school

• The bullies need to be confronted for their unacceptable

behavior

14 14

An anti-bullying program should

include...

• ...something for all students

→ universal actions

• ...something for bullies and victims in particular

→ indicated actions

15

KiVa antibullying program

• Special characteristics:

– Both universal and indicated actions

– An exceptionally large amount of materials &

concrete tools (not merely a ”philosophy”)

– Utilizing virtual learning environments

– Influencing the whole group

• KiVa is more systematic than most existing

anti-bullying programs

• Strong evidence of effectiveness

• European Crime Prevention Award, 2009

• Three national awards (2008, 2010, 2011, 2012)

• Social Policy Award for the Best Article, Society

for research on Adolescence, 2012

• Ongoing evaluations outside of Finland

– The Netherlands, the US (Delaware), Wales,

Estonia, European school at Luxembourg, Italy

16

KiVa antibullying program

KiVa™ Bullying prevention is a team effort

17

Pupils Everyone is responsible

for putting an end to bullying

KiVa™ Team Responsible for tackling bullying and ensuring long-term success

Parents Supporting KiVa™

implementation and extending the reach to

everyday life

Teachers Rising awareness, providing self-efficacy, and strategies to respond constructively

Contents of KiVa

Universal actions

• Student lessons

• Computer games

• Parents’ guide and back-

to-school night

• Posters, vests

• Annual surveys

– students

– staff

Indicated actions

• Tackling the cases

coming to attention

– KiVa team

– classroom teacher

18

Universal actions

19

Universal actions

• Commitment & coordination at the school level

• Signaling that ”we are a KiVa school”

– visible vests for teachers supervising recess time

– posters

• Student online survey (annual)

– Automatic feedback to schools

20

Universal actions – student lessons

and computer game

• Three units, appropriate for different grade

levels/students of different ages: Unit 1, Unit 2,

Unit 3

21

22

The aims of the student lessons [and

computer game]

Enhancing...

• awareness of the role bystanders play in the

bullying process

• empathic understanding of the victim’s plight

Providing...

• safe strategies to support and defend the

victimized peers → self-efficacy for defending

23

24

Teacher’s manual – student lessons

25

Activities included in student lessons

Learning by doing …

26

27

– Repeating & testing of what has been learnt during the lessons – ”I KNOW”

– Learning to take action – ”I CAN” Students go around in a virtual school and come to

challenging situations (being bystanders of bullying) where they have to decide what to say and do

– Motivation – ”I DO” Students reflect on their own behavior (how they

have done with following the KiVa rules) and get feedback

KiVa games and KiVa Street are closely connected to student lessons

Virtual learning environments connected to

student lessons

Supporting the lessons Rehearsal – Additional material – Excercises – Motivation

28

29

KiVa computer game; Unit 2

Parents’ involvement

• Information leaflet for parents (www)

– Print and send to each home

– Kiusaamise vastu: translation?

• Back-to-school night

30

31

To remind about KiVa...

• Posters

• Highly visible vests for

recess supervisors (in

Finland, teachers)

Indicated actions: tackling the cases of

bullying coming to attention

32

33

KiVa team

• In each school implmenting the KiVa program, there

is a KiVa team

• Three or more adults from among the school

personnel, for instance :

– a principal, a teacher, a school social worker

– 2 X teacher, a special education tacher

– a principal, a teacher, a school nurse

34

The role of the KiVa team

• Tackling cases of repeated bullying in

collaboration with the classroom teacher

• Documenting bullying cases

35

Which cases should be directed to

KiVa team?

• SCREENING based on the definition of bullying

• Cases not directed to the team (e.g., a conflict

or fight between students): ”treatment as usual”

• Cases directed to the team

– A procedure with several steps

Which cases are directed to the KiVa

team?

• Main criteria:

– is this offensive/abusive?

– is this repeated, or is there a fear of repetition?

– The form of bullying (whether physical, verbal,

indirect, cyber) is NOT relevant for making the

decision

36

Finnish evaluation of KiVa (2007-2008)

• SCREENING: An average of 9,24 cases/school,

range 1-55 (!)

• 60.5% of these cases were directed to KiVa team,

an average of 5,6 cases/school

• Other cases were typically

– Fight or argument 59%

– Misunderstanding 11%

– Single aggressive incident 30%

• When reported to school personnel

• Frequency Percent Valid% Cumulative%

• August 15 2.8 3.1 3.1

• September 117 21.9 24.2 27.3

• October 85 15.9 17.6 44.9

• November 4 84 15.7 17.4 62.3

• December 5 27 5.1 5.6 67.9

• January 42 7.9 8.7 76.6

• February 7 30 5.6 6.2 82.8

• March 36 6.7 7.5 90.3

• April 29 5.4 6.0 96.3

• May 18 3.4 3.7 100.0

• Total 483 90.4 100.0

Reports to schools every month; most of

them in September-October

60,5% 39,5%

The procedure

for tackling the

cases of bullying

coming to attention

(p. 135 in Teacher’s

manual)

Confronting and nonconfronting

approaches

• Confronting

– E.g., Olweus’ view about intervening in bullying

Making it clear that the child has misbehaved –

need to change

• Nonconfronting

– Pikas: The method of shared concern; Maines &

Robinson: No blame approach

Creating a ”shared concern” of the child who has

been bullied; blaming the bully/ies not necessary

40

Confronting approach (C)

• ” We know that you have been involved in bullying Amanda for

quite some time. Nasty rumours have been spread about her

and she has received hurtful messages on her facebook wall.

This must stop immediately.

• GOAL 1: To make it clear that adults know about the

bullying and do not tolerate it.

• ”What are you going to do about this?”

• GOAL 2: To make the child committed to changing his/her

behavior

• ”Okay, this sounds good. We’ll meet again next week and see

how it has been going”

• GOAL 3: To make it clear that the situation is being

followed

41

Nonconfronting approach (NC)

• ”We are really concerned about your classmate Amanda who

has been bullied. Nasty rumours have been spread about her

and she has received hurtful messages on her facebook wall.

This must stop immediately.

• Amanda must feel bad don’t you think?”

• GOAL 1: Shared understanding that Amanda is not feeling

well

• ”Is there anything you could do about it?”

• GOAL 2: To make the child suggest some way(s) to make

Amanda feel better

• ”Okay that sounds great. Try that, and we’ll meet again in a

week and hear how it has been going”

• GOAL 3: To make it clear that the situation is

being followed

42

The two approaches

NONCONFRONTING

• Bullying

– Stopped 74.9%

– Decreased 22.3%

– Remained the same 2.2%

– Increased 0.6%

CONFRONTING

• Bullying

– Stopped 83.5%

– Decreased 14.9%

– Remained the same 1.5%

– Increased 0%

43

IN PRIMARY SCHOOL GRADES,

NO DIFFERENCE IN EFFECTIVENESS

Comparing the two approaches: The

proportion of cases in which bullying had

stopped completely

Which approach

(confronting/nonconfronting) have

schools chosen?

• Now, during broad rollout of the program,

Finnish schools choose which approach they

use

– most schools have chosen the confronting

approach

• Different approaches in different countries

– Netherlands: nonconfronting

– Delaware: confronting

– Wales: schools make the choice by themselves

45

Evidence of effectiveness

46

Evidence of effectiveness

In Finland

• Randomized controlled trial 2007-2009

– 117 intervention and 117 control schools

– >30,000 students (grades 1–9, 7–15 year old)

• First year of nationwide implementation (2009-2010)

– 880 Finnish schools (cohort longitudinal design)

– ~150,000 students (grades 1–9)

• Monitoring based on annual survey (2009–

47

RCT: Grades 1–9

• Odds of being bullied and bullying others (at

least 2 or 3 times a month) was 1.3 times

higher for a control school student

– ~ 20% reduction in victimization and bullying

– Effects larger in primary school

Kärnä et al. (2010; 2012)

KiVa…

• influenced multiple forms of victimization,

including verbal, physical, and online victimization

49

Salmivalli et al. (2010)

Changes in being bullied by different forms

during one school year: RCT, grades 4 to 6

Nationwide trial 2009-2010 Kärnä et al. (2011)

Odds 1.22

Odds 1.18

The effects are practically significant

• “In the Finnish student population of around

500,000 students, the reductions would have

amounted to about 7,500 bullies and 12,500

victims during one school year.” (Kärnä, 2012).

52

KiVa…

• decreased in reinforcing and assisting the bully

• Influenced children´s antibullying attitudes,

efficacy, and effort to defend the victims

• Increased empathy toward victimized

53

Kärnä et al. (2010; 2012)

KiVa also Influenced…

• children’s perceptions on their teachers’

attitudes and how well the teacher is able to do

to reduce bullying

• teachers self-evaluated competence to tackle

bullying, and teacher perceptions of bullying.

(Ahtola et al. 2012; Veenstra et al. work in progress)

Mediators of the KiVa effects

55

KiVa starts

Succesful changes in…

• antibullying attitudes

• empathy towards victimized students

• students perceptions on bystander responses and teacher attitudes

Reductions in bullying

Saarento, S., Boulton, A., & Salmivalli, C. (work in progress; grades 4–6)

Additionally KiVa…

• reduced students’ anxiety and depression

and had a positive impact on their

perceptions of peer climate (Williford et al, 2011)

• had positive effects on school liking and

academic motivation

• Improved students’ well-being (Salmivalli, Garandeau & Veenstra, 2012)

56

KiVa indicated actions are effective

• The proportion of cases handled by the school

team in which bullying…

– Stopped completely 79.4%

– Decreased 18.5%

– Remained the same 1.9%

– Increased 0.3%

(Asked from the victims in the follow-up discussion)

Garandeau et al. (under review). Tackling acute cases of bullying:

Comparison of two methods in the context of the antibullying program

References

• Ahtola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli,

C. (2012). For children only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying

program on teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6),

851–859. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.006

• Garandeau, Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (under review).

Tackling acute cases of bullying: Comparison of two methods

in the context of the KiVa antibullying program.

• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C.

(2010). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa anti-bullying

program. Child Development.

• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., &

Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying

program: Grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal of Educational

Psychology.

58

• Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Going to

scale: The effectiveness of KiVa antibullying program during

the first year of nationwide implementation. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology

• Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011).

Counteracting bulllying in Finland: The KiVa program and its

effects on different forms of being bullied. International Journal

of Behavioral Development.

• Salmivalli, C., Garandeau, C. F., & Veenstra, R. (2012). KiVa

anti-bullying program: Implications for school adjustment. In A.

M. Ryan & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships and

adjustment at School. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub.

• Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., &

Salmivalli, C. (2011). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program

on adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and perception of peers.

Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.

60

www.kivaprogram.net