1. Research-based prevention of bullying:
KiVa Antibullying Program
Senior Researcher Sanna Herkama
University of Turku, Finland
sanna.herkama@utu.fi
1

2. The KiVa program
• KiVa team at the University of Turku consists of
– Co-leaders: Professor Christina Salmivalli and PhD
Elisa Poskiparta
– Senior researchers, doctoral students, coordinators,
project managers, …
• Funded by the Finnish Ministry of Education
– development and initial evaluation of KiVa
(2006–2009)
– diffusion of KiVa to Finnish comprehensive
schools (since 2009)
2

3. Bullying
• Bullying: repeated aggressive behavior against
a person who finds it difficult to defend
him/herself against the perpetrator(s)
– takes numerous forms
 often verbal abuse, public ridicule
 physical, relational, cyberbullying..
• Different from conflicts / fights between two
equal children
3

4. Bullying
• Rather than consisting of single attacks, bullying
represents a rather stable relationship further
embedded in the larger peer setting
• Universal phenomenon; more than 10% of
children and adolescents worldwide are
systematically bullied by their peers
4

5. Need for evidence-based bullying
prevention programs
• Numerous negative effects on well-being and
psychosocial development
– victims suffer
 short and long term
– perpetrators learn that aggression is a way ahead
– bystanders experience anxiety
• Safe and supportive learning environment is a
precondition for effective education and academic
achievement
5

6. Finland and bullying?
Situation before KiVa
• Finland’s prevalence of bullies and victims slightly
below ’average’ (around 10%)
• Bullying a big concern in society since 1990’s
→ Changes in legislation
’Right for a safe school environment’ (1999)
’Each school should have their own policy...’
(2003)
• National trend data: No changes in ten years in
the annual prevalence survey (School Health
Promotion Study)
6

7. ’Each school should have their own
policy...’
• Each school develops their own policy...??
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
self-invented program self-invented program self-invented program
RESOURCES?? EFFECTS?
– Evidence-based prevention of bullying is
needed
7

8. Taking Action at the National Level
• The Finnish government decided that bullying
prevention is a priority
– Contracts with the University of Turku:
 Development of the KiVa program and initial
evaluation of its effects 2006-2009
 Beginning the broad implementation across
Finnish comprehensive schools 2009-2010
 Supporting high-quality implementation and
sustainability across the country 2010-2011
8

9. Background of KiVa: 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)
9

10. Background of KiVa: The social
architecture of bullying
• In order to demonstrate their power and renew
their high-status position in the group, bullies
need to choose...
– targets who are submissive, insecure, physically
weak and/or in a low-power position in the
group...
– optimal time and place for their attacks (peer
witnesses present)
10

11. Background of KiVa: The social
architecture of bullying
• Participant roles in bullying (Salmivalli et al.,
1996)
20%
reinforcers of the bully
24%
8% bully outsiders
12% victim
assistants of the bully
17%
defenders of the victim
7%
11

12. In order to reduce bullying...
• We do not necessarily need to change the victims,
making them ”less vulnerable”
12

13. In order to reduce bullying...
• We do not necessarily need to change the victims,
making them ”less vulnerable”
• Influencing the behavior of classmates can reduce the
rewards gained by the bullies and consequently, their
motivation to bully in the first place
UNIVERSAL
• 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
13

14. In order to reduce bullying...
• We do not necessarily need to change the victims,
making them ”less vulnerable”
• Influencing the behavior of classmates can reduce the
rewards gained by the bullies and consequently, their
motivation to bully in the first place
INDICATED
• 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

15. KiVa antibullying program
• Special characteristics:
– Both universal and indicated actions
– An exceptionally large amount of materials &
concrete tools (not merely a ”philosophy”)
– Utilizing ICT: virtual learning environments
15

16. KiVa antibullying program
• KiVa is more systematic and structured than
most existing anti-bullying programs
– What to do, when to do it, how to do it,...
16

17. 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
– Pre-implementation survey (May)
– Survey repeated annually
 Automatic feedback to schools
17

18. Universal actions
• Student lessons
18

19. 19

20. 20

21. Computer games and virtual learning
environments
KiVa Game
KiVa Street
21

22. KiVa games and KiVa Street are closely
connected to student lessons
Enhancing awareness of the role bystanders play in
the bullying process, as well as empathy for victims
Providing self-efficacy and safe strategies to
support and defend the victimized peers
22

23. KiVa games and KiVa Street are closely
connected to student lessons
– Repeating & testing of what has been learnt – ”I KNOW”
– Learning to take action – ”I CAN”
– Motivation – ”I DO”
23

24. Parents’ guide & website for parents
24

25. Indicated actions –
tackling the cases of bullying coming to
attention
• Individual discussions with the victim and with
the bullying children KIVA TEAM
• + utilizing prosocial, high-status peers
– ”your help is needed” CLASSROOM TEACHER
 setting standards for others
 making the victim feel better
 protecting the victimized child from further attacks
25

26. Evaluation of KiVa
• Randomized controlled trial
– 2007-2008, 2008-2009
• Evaluation during broad rollout; age-cohort
design
– since 2009
26

27. Randomized controlled trial (RCT)
• 234 schools (117 intervention, 117 control)
representing all provinces in the mainland
Finland and both Finnish- and Swedish-
speaking schools
• > 30 000 students
• Exceptionally wide age range (Grades 1-9,
students with 7-15 years of age)
• Numerous outcome variables
27

28. RCT: examples of outcome variables
• Bullying and victimization (self-reports, peer-reports,
dyadic reports)
• Bystander behaviors (reinforcing the bully,
defending the victim, ...)
• Bullying-related attitudes, empathy, self-efficacy and
outcome expectations regarding defending behavior
• Internalizing problems (depression, anxiety, self-
esteem, peer perceptions)
• Peer status, loneliness
• Academic adjustment (school liking, academic
motivation, academic performance)
28

29. RCT: Changes in being bullied by different forms
(9 months of implementation, Grades 4 to 6)

30. RCT: Success of the indicated actions
• 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%
Garandeau et al., Tackling acute cases of bullying:
Comparison of two methods in the context of the KiVa
antibullying program.
30

31. Main conclusions (RCT)
• KiVa was effective in reducing (self- and peer-
reported) bullying and victimization, already during
the first nine months of implementation
• The effects generalize to multiple forms of
victimization
• Numerous positive effects on other outcomes,
including school liking and academic motivation
• Effects varied across grade levels, being strongest in
grade 4 and weakest in middle school (grades 7-9)
• Indicated actions were often effective, but taken in a
minority of bullying cases
31

32. RCT: Success of the indicated actions
• However: only a minority of cases came to
attention and were directed to school teams
• New feature in KiVa computer game:
– Virtual ”mailbox”
 Possibility to send a message to own school’s
KiVa team
32

33. Mailbox in KiVa game

34. Evaluation under broad rollout
• RCT 2007-2008, 2008-2009
Student survey
-May 2009
• 2009 1450 schools -May 2010
N~150 000 students
From 880 schools
• 2010 + 810 schools
• 2011 + 200 schools
34

35. Main conclusions (broad rollout)
• Effects weaker than in RCT, but still significant
• Again, strongest effects in grade 4 and weakest
in middle school (grades 7-9)
• Generalized to Finnish population of 500 000
students, the effects of this size would mean a
reduction of 12 000 victims and 8 000 bullies
after nine months of implementing KiVa
35

36. Primary schools: bullying others (%)

37. Primary schools: being bullied (%)

38. More data comes in every year...
• 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015...
• ...about bullying and victimization but also about
implementation fidelity
38

39. Challenges
• Standards of evidence → identifying best
programmes at the European level
• Supporting high-quality implementation of
programs that work
– from evidence-based programs to evidence-
based practices
• Further research is needed
– effective ingredients of programs
– effects across diverse cultural contexts
39

40. The future of KiVa:
Maintaining high-quality implementation in
Finland
• On-line training for school personnel
• Discussion forum for school personnel
• Yearly on-line surveys
– students
– staff
 automatic feedback to schools
40

41. The future of KiVa:
Maintaining high-quality implementation in
Finland (cont.)
• Newsletters (4 / school year)
• Biannual KiVa Days (since 2010)
• Quality recommendations
• ”KiVa School of the Year” (since 2011)
• KiVa resource schools (piloting begins in 2012)
• New products to complement existing KiVa
materials
41

42. • KiVa is an example of how commitment from
part of politicians, researchers, and educators
can make a difference in the lives of numerous
children and youth
• European Crime Prevention Award, 2009
• Three national awards (2008, 2010, 2011)
• Social Policy Award for the Best Article, Society
for research on Adolescence, 2012
• International evaluations underway
42

43. Some references
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli,
C. (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program:
Grades 4-6. Child Development, 82, 311-330.
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C.
(in press). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1-3
and 7-9. Journal of Educational Psychology.
• Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Counteracting bullying
in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being
bullied. IJBD.
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T., Alanen, E., 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.
• Williford, Boulton, Noland, Little, & Salmivalli (2012). The effects of KIVa
antibullying program on depression, anxiety, and negative peer
perceptions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology.
• Salmivalli, Garandeau, & Veenstra (2012). KiVa antibullying program:
Implications for school adjustment.
43

44. More information: www.kivaprogram.net
Contact: kiva@kivaprogram.net
44