1. BULLYING AND BELONGING: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF THE PROTECTIVE ROLE OF DEFENDERS IN FRIENDSHIP GROUPS Siân Jones, Claire Fox, Simon Hunter, & Jon Kennedy sianjones@brookes.ac.uk @SianOxBrookes http://throughtheacademiclookingglass.wordpress.com

2. GROUPS AND BULLYING

3. Within 51 cases reported to us, there were 23 cases where a single target was bullied by a group of children, but the target was then supported by other children. Children (friends of the bullied) approached me and told me about what had happened, giving me names of the bullies, also of other children who could corroborate their story.[....] they had not approached any other teachers or informed their parents (P 19, 11-13 years) I discovered that a group of girls in my class were bullying one particular child... there were about 7 or 8 involved altogether (P30, 10-11 years). GROUPS AND BULLYING

4. DEFENDERS  Defenders are those children who “take sides with the victims, comforting and supporting them” (Salmivalli, 2010, p. 114).  Defenders tend to:  be emotionally stable (Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003)  be cognitively skilled (Caravita, DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2009).  be empathic (e.g., Caravita et al., 2009)  have high self-efficacy in their defending ability, (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).  Pozzoli and Gini (2010) found high levels of defending behaviour under conditions of high perceived peer pressure, even when personal responsibility for intervening was low.  Defenders are those children who “take sides with the victims, comforting and supporting them” (Salmivalli, 2010, p. 114).  Defenders tend to:  be emotionally stable (Tani, Greenman, Schneider, & Fregoso, 2003)  be cognitively skilled (Caravita, DiBlasio, & Salmivalli, 2009).  be empathic (e.g., Caravita et al., 2009)  have high self-efficacy in their defending ability, (Thornberg & Jungert, 2013).  Pozzoli and Gini (2010) found high levels of defending behaviour under conditions of high perceived peer pressure, even when personal responsibility for intervening was low.

5. EFFECTS OF DEFENDERS  Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta (2011) showed that defending the victim was negatively associated with the frequency of bullying in a classroom.  Sainio et al. (2011) found that being defended was positively related to victims’ adjustment and social status. What about the effect of defenders over time on bullying at the peer (friendship) group level?  Salmivalli, Voeten, and Poskiparta (2011) showed that defending the victim was negatively associated with the frequency of bullying in a classroom.  Sainio et al. (2011) found that being defended was positively related to victims’ adjustment and social status. What about the effect of defenders over time on bullying at the peer (friendship) group level?

6. INGROUP IDENTIFICATION Ingroup identification has a moderating influence on children’s reactions to intergroup events.  Nesdale, Durkin, Maass, and Griffiths (2005) found that children’s ethnic prejudice was positively related to strength of identification with their ethnic ingroup.  Jones, Manstead, and Livingstone (2009, 2011) showed that group-based reactions to bullying intensified as a function of group membership and in-group identification. Levels of identification with the friendship group therefore influence group members’ willingness to stick with and support the group.

7. BULLYING AND SOCIAL IDENTITY Social network research on bullying has shown that defenders are well-liked (Salmivalli et al., 1996) and popular among their peers (Caravita et al., 2009).

8. Sample of 1 234 UK children, aged 11- 13 years (M = 11.68 years, SD = 0.64 years, 612 male, 93% white). Data were collected at two time points – Autumn and Summer Terms. Children completed peer nominations of peer victimization (e.g., Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). Sample of 1 234 UK children, aged 11- 13 years (M = 11.68 years, SD = 0.64 years, 612 male, 93% white). Data were collected at two time points – Autumn and Summer Terms. Children completed peer nominations of peer victimization (e.g., Björkqvist, Lagerspetz, & Kaukiainen, 1992). ESRC HUMOUR AND BULLYING PROJECT

9. Children were asked to nominate a best friend, and their friends, in the class. They were asked to give each classmate a rating from 1 “dislike very much”, to 5 “like very much”. Children were asked to nominate a best friend, and their friends, in the class. They were asked to give each classmate a rating from 1 “dislike very much”, to 5 “like very much”. ESRC HUMOUR AND BULLYING PROJECT

10. IDENTIFYING FRIENDSHIP GROUPS Based on Baines & Blatchford (2009).  A group is defined as a set of children (N ≥2) each of whom reciprocally nominates at least two others in the group as a friend or best friend, and reciprocally gives at least one of those a friendship rating of 5 (“like very much”). 10

11. HYPOTHESES We hypothesized that having defenders in the friendship group, and having children with multiple friendship group associations in the friendship group, would be negatively related over time to the levels of peer victimization. We controlled for the effects of gender, peer acceptance, and class size. Peer Victimization at Time 1 Peer Victimization at Time 2 Defenders in Friendship Groups Multiple Group Associations of Friends

12. LONGITUDINAL DATA ANALYSES ß=-.155, t =-3.86, p<.001. Effects of defenders and networked-ness on later victimization

13. IMPLICATIONS The reduction in peer victimization as a function of the number of defenders and ‘networked’ children in a child’s friendship group emphasizes the need to investigate bullying as a group phenomenon at the level of the friendship group in real friendship groups. How the effect of group-identification might vary depending on group norms could also be examined, given Polozzi and Gini’s (2010) finding that perceived peer group pressure predicted defending behavior even when personal responsibility for intervening was low.

14. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS An explicit focus on friendship groups would be a valuable addition to existing anti-bullying strategies. Encouraging and enabling children to defend and support victimized peers can help reduce levels of victimization. Our results support the importance of friendship groups within schools and emphasise the need to network individuals across those friendship groups to ensure they can have maximum impact.

15. SUMMARY  We aimed to explore the effect of having defenders in one’s friendship group, and having networked friends in one’s friendship group, on peer victimization.  The longitudinal design allowed us to look at the cause-effect relationship between defending and later levels of victimization.  Previous research had not looked at the effect of defenders in friendship groups.  We aimed to explore the effect of having defenders in one’s friendship group, and having networked friends in one’s friendship group, on peer victimization.  The longitudinal design allowed us to look at the cause-effect relationship between defending and later levels of victimization.  Previous research had not looked at the effect of defenders in friendship groups.

16. SUMMARY  Having more defenders in one’s friendship group, and having children in one’s friendship group who are networked across multiple friendship groups, reduces peer victimization across a nine month period.  We now need to better understand the social identity concerns of (a) defenders, and (b) those who belong to multiple friendship groups, as a basis for developing anti-bullying interventions encouraging intragroup defending of victims.  Having more defenders in one’s friendship group, and having children in one’s friendship group who are networked across multiple friendship groups, reduces peer victimization across a nine month period.  We now need to better understand the social identity concerns of (a) defenders, and (b) those who belong to multiple friendship groups, as a basis for developing anti-bullying interventions encouraging intragroup defending of victims.

17. Siân Jones sianjones@brookes.ac.uk @SianOxBrookes http://throughtheacademiclookingglass.wordpress.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Claire Fox Simon Hunter Keele Research Team Jon Kennedy Susan Pratley All the children who took part, and the schools and parents who allowed them to do so

18. LONGITUDINAL DATA ANALYSES High Loneliness at Time 1 Low Loneliness at Time 1 Effects of defenders and loneliness on later victimization

19. A CLASS NETWORK N = 17 Group 1Group 2 Group 3 768 770 765 756 759 764 777 775 771 766 772 767 769 774 778 776 760 Group 4 19

20. CORRELATIONS 1234567891011 Mean 3.764.377.417.960.790.803.273.30--0.290.30 SD 7.278.025.846.420.600.630.561.98--0.320.30 1. Time 1 Peer Victimization 2. Time 2 Peer Victimization.748*** 3. Time 1 % Defenders in Group.115**.038 4. Time 2 % Defenders in Group.138**.150**.248*** 5. Time 1 N of Membership Groups-.212***.055.030 6. Time 2 N of Membership Groups-.161***-.216***-.042.027.286*** 7. Time 1 Peer Acceptance-.385***-.369***.030-.033.365***.259*** 8. Time 2 Peer Acceptance-.096*-.123**.043.014-.009.143***.122** 9. Gender.133***.112**-.045-.059-.115**-.065-.103** 10. Time 1 % of Networked Group Members in Membership Groups.059.014.077.085.103*.045-.078-.013-.041 11. Time 2 % of Networked Group Members in Membership Groups.146***.102**.051.122**-.028.032-.014.068.162***.097 *p <.05; **p <.01, ***p <.001.