School-Based Mentoring as Selective Prevention for Bullied Children
School-Based Mentoring as Selective Prevention for Bullied Children
This preliminary study tested the benefits of school-based lunchtime mentoring as a form of selective prevention for bullied children. Participants were 36 elementary school children in grades 4 and 5 who had been identified as bullied (based on child and teacher reports). Children in the Lunch Buddy program (n = 12) were paired with a college student mentor who visited twice each week during the spring semester of an academic year. Also participating were 24 matched-control children; 12 were from the same school as Lunch Buddy children ("Same" controls) and 12 were from a school different from that of Lunch Buddy children ("Different" controls). Results indicated that compared to Different control children, Lunch Buddy children experienced significantly greater reductions in peer reports of peer victimization from fall to spring semesters. Lunch Buddy children and mentors viewed the relationship as positive, and parents and teachers were very satisfied with Lunch Buddy mentoring. We discuss the implications of our findings for both research and practice.
Much is known about universal interventions designed to lower the overall incidence of school bullying (Merrell et al. 2008; Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2004); far less is known about selective interventions designed specifically for bullied children (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Juvonen and Graham 2001; Pepler 2006). In this study, we consider the value of pairing bullied children with school-based mentors. Recent studies suggest school-based mentoring has beneficial effects on children's peer relationships (Herrera 1999, 2004), an area of functioning that is consistently shown to be problematic for bullied children (Card et al. 2007). Despite the appeal of school-based mentoring, we could find no studies that directly examined the benefits of mentoring interventions for bullied children. In this preliminary study, we examined the potential impact of pairing bullied elementary school children with a lunchtime school-based mentor.
Borrowing from prior research (Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Juvonen and Graham 2001; Olweus 1993), we define peer victimization as repeated exposure to peer interactions that (a) convey harmful intent; (b) produce harmful effects; and (c) are sanctioned, implicitly or explicitly, by peers. This definition emphasizes the chronicity and impact of bully behavior as well as its intent (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop 2001). Also recognized is the tendency for power differences to extend beyond the bully–victim dyad to include bystanders, supporters, and other peers who are witness to but not interveners in instances of peer victimization (Craig and Pepler 1997; Olweus 1993; Rodkin and Hodges 2003). Prevalence rates for peer victimization vary depending on the definition, the informant, the measure, and the developmental level of the children (Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2002; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Snell et al. 2002). Researchers commonly observe that middle school and high school students report less peer victimization than do elementary school students (Olweus 1993; Pepler et al. 2006). In contrast to grade-related declines in self-reported peer victimization are findings indicating that bullying is relatively stable over time and possibly increases till the end of high school (Smith et al. 1999). Smith et al. (2001) suggested that most children learn to cope with school bullying so that over time there are fewer victims; unfortunately, children who continue to be bullied are thought to be more easily identified and more seriously victimized (Hodges et al. 1997; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1999).
Serious risk associated with peer victimization is most evident for those children who persist as targets (Hanish and Guerra 2004; Pepler 2006). Chronic peer victimization has been linked with a number of negative outcomes including social isolation, feelings of loneliness, low self-esteem, and disrupted academic performance or school attendance (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Ladd and Ladd 2001; Snell et al. 2002; Storch and Ledley 2005). Compared to non-victims, bullied children report more physical and psychosomatic complaints (Fekkes et al. 2006; Nishina et al. 2005), are more likely to exhibit heightened levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Hawker and Boulton 2000), and are more apt to have a psychiatric disorder (Kumpulainen et al. 2001). As adults, chronically bullied children are at risk for depression, self-criticism, and suicidal behavior (Olweus 1993; Rigby and Slee 1999). Kumpulainen et al. (2001) found that only 24% of victimized children were brought to the attention of mental health professionals, roughly half the rate at which bullies were treated.
Most anti-bullying interventions involve changing school-wide norms and structures (e.g., teacher supervision, consequences) so as to decrease opportunities and rewards for school bullying (Olweus 1993). Such programs, if faithfully implemented and continually supported, can lead to significant reductions in peer victimization (Merrell et al. 2008; Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2003, 2004; Stassen Berger 2007). However, replicating a successful anti-bullying program is not easy (e.g., Salmivalli et al. 2005) and negative outcomes have been reported (e.g., Brockenbrough 2001; Price and Jones 2001; Stevens et al. 2000). Because intervention researchers tend to use anonymous surveys to assess changes in overall levels of bullying and victimization (Chan et al. 2005; Stassen Berger 2007), it is unclear whether school-wide programs can significantly alter the risk trajectory of individual children who are chronically bullied.
Recently, scholars have begun to call for interventions that provide more focused support to bullied children (Card and Hodges 2008; Nation 2007; Pepler 2006). Unfortunately, there is an absence of sound research examining the feasibility and efficacy of selective interventions for bullied children (Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Nation 2007). Smith et al. (2003) identified three interventions designed for "specific pupils" (p. 592), but the emphasis in these programs was more on the bully than the bullied. Two approaches were tested empirically: the Method of Shared Concern (Pikas 1989) and the No Blame Approach (Maines and Robinson 1998). The Method of Shared Concern (Pikas 1989) has seldom been evaluated and the No Blame Approach (Robinson and Maines 1997) reportedly led to immediate success in 80% of cases (Young 1998; Young and Holdorf 2003). The No Blame Approach creates support groups of bullies and bystanders that work together to seek solutions (but not blame) to the problem of bullying. The approach has been described by its proponents as somewhat risky and "less likely to be put into practice" (Young and Holdorf 2003, p. 272).
There is evidence that social skills training can lead to gains in self-esteem and self-efficacy for children who are bullied, although the impact on children's bullying experiences has been less promising (Arora 1991; DeRosier 2004; Fox and Boulton 2003). DeRosier (2004), for example, found no posttreatment effects on self- or peer-reported victimization following a skills training intervention study that included a subgroup of bullied children. A follow-up study conducted by DeRosier and Marcus (2005) revealed a range of benefits for girls and also for children who were aggressive, but it was unclear what proportion of these groups had been bullied.
Youth mentoring is often touted as an effective prevention tool (Dortch 2000), but there is a tendency for the practice and promotion of youth mentoring to outpace its empirical support (DuBois and Karcher 2005; Rhodes 2008). Traditionally, youth mentoring has entailed one-on-one visits with adult volunteers outside of school hours and away from school campuses. For reasons more practical than theoretical, organizations such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) are now placing strong emphasis on school-based mentoring programs: school-based mentoring can potentially attract greater numbers of volunteers who mentor for shorter lengths of time in settings that offer more structure and less risk (Herrera 1999, 2007). Recent studies reveal the promise of school-based mentoring as a preventative intervention for youth at risk for maladjustment (Cavell et al. 2009; Cavell and Smith 2005; Dubois and Karcher 2005; Herrera et al. 2007; Hughes et al. 2001; Hughes et al. 2005; Karcher 2005), but some studies reveal limited gains (e.g., Bernstein et al. 2009). In theory, school-based mentors have greater access to school and peer ecologies, thereby affording these mentors unique opportunities to enhance children's relationships with teachers and peers (Herrera 1999; Herrera et al. 2000). To the degree that schoolbased mentoring is beneficial to children at risk, it could serve as a low cost intervention that is relatively easily implemented and replicated.
One approach to school-based mentoring involves lunchtime visits with college student mentors (Cavell et al. 2009; Cavell and Smith 2005; Hughes et al. 2005). Cavell and Hughes (2000) found support for Lunch Buddy mentoring in a randomized clinical trial targeting aggressive, school-age children (N = 174). The findings were surprising because the Lunch Buddy program was designed as a control condition used to evaluate a more complex, multi-component intervention model that included three-semesters of community-based mentoring (Hughes et al. 2005). The original goal of Lunch Buddy mentoring was to offer an intervention that was appealing but essentially inert. Based on the prevailing assumption that a close bond is critical to successful mentoring (e.g., Rhodes 1994), Lunch Buddy mentors were given limited opportunities for relationship formation: (a) all visits occurred in the school cafeteria, (b) the lunch period lasted only 30 min, (c) other children were present at the lunch table, and (d) children were paired with a different mentor for each of three semesters.
Unexpectedly, children in the Lunch Buddy program evinced significant improvement over time (from pre to posttreatment and from pretreatment to the 1- and 2-year follow-up) on both parent and teacher ratings of externalizing behavior problems (Achenbach 2001a, b) and on teacher-rated behavioral and scholastic competence (Hughes et al. 2001, 2005). There were no significant between-group treatment effects immediately following the intervention, but significant between-group effects emerged at the 1- and 2-year follow-up for teacher-rated externalizing problems and for teacher-rated behavioral and scholastic competence (Hughes et al. 2001), as well as for child-rated school belonging 1-year posttreatment (Malcolm and Cavell 2006). In every instance, significant between-group treatment effects favored the less intensive Lunch Buddy program. Subsequent analyses involving aggressive children who remained in the same school throughout the three-semester intervention (n = 86) indicated that school context moderated treatment outcome: Lunch Buddy mentoring was particularly effective for those aggressive children who attended schools marked by high levels of playground aggression, economic disadvantage, and family mobility (Hughes et al. 2005). Lunch Buddy mentoring also appeared to be socially acceptable as an intervention. Children and mentors gave positive ratings to the Lunch Buddy program (Hughes et al. 2001), and school administrators requested that Lunch Buddy mentoring continue despite the end of the research project. (This same request was not made for the more involved experimental intervention.)
The fact that Lunch Buddy mentoring made few demands on children or staff could explain its appeal as well as its therapeutic impact. Unlike teacher-driven interventions or child-focused skills training, lunchtime mentoring did not directly target children's peer-related difficulties. Instead, it appeared that lunchtime visits with a valued mentor led indirectly to positive changes in children's peer ecology (Cavell and Smith 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Malcolm and Cavell 2006). For example, in weekly logs and end-of-term papers, Lunch Buddy mentors noted that nearby lunch mates routinely inserted themselves into mentor-mentee interactions (Cavell and Henrie 2010). Mentors saw these "intrusions" as obstacles to forming a close, trusting relationship with their mentee, but Cavell and Smith (2005) speculated that mentors' involvement in lunchtime peer interactions altered the contingencies that governed those interactions, perhaps reducing social rewards for antagonistic behaviors and enhancing rewards for prosocial behaviors. Cavell and Smith also hypothesized that consistent visits from valued mentors led lunchtime peers to adopt more benign views of target children, many of whom had a negative reputation among peers.
Some scholars question the utility of directly intervening in the problem of school bullying, suggesting instead strategies that are indirect and less stigmatizing (Galloway and Roland 2004; Salmivalli 1999). The challenge is to overcome peer-mediated contingencies and reputational biases that tacitly support school bullying while not causing harm to individual children who are identified and treated (Card et al. 2007; Pepler 2006; Rodkin and Hodges 2003; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). If school-based mentoring has the potential to improve children's peer relationships (Herrera 1999, 2004), then perhaps children who are chronically bullied can benefit from lunch-time mentors. Indeed, Lunch Buddy mentoring could offer a unique solution to the dilemma of how to help bullied children who face an imbalance of power (Craig and Pepler 1997; Olweus 1993) but are reluctant to ask for or accept help (Fekkes et al. 2005; Rigby 2005; Unnever and Cornell 2004; Whitney and Smith 1993).
There are several mechanisms through which Lunch Buddy mentoring could benefit chronically bullied children. Given prior research indicating that adult monitoring of contexts that occasion bullying is critical to intervention success (Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2004), the mere presence of an adult mentor could reduce school bullying during the lunch period. It is also possible that some mentors use praise or reprimands to alter the contingencies that maintain peer bullying, whereas other mentors might model conversational skills and conflict-resolution strategies that are adopted by bullied children and their lunchtime peers (Cavell and Henrie 2010). The desire to interact with a valued mentor could also mean that nearby peers begin to view bullied children (who are the focus of mentoring) in a less negative light (Hymel 1986). Over time, we hypothesize that bullied children consistently mentored in this way could obtain a level of social capital and peer connectedness that serves to protect them from future victimization (Card et al. 2007).
Despite the intuitive appeal of school-based mentoring, we could find no studies that examined the benefits of youth mentoring for bullied children. We did find three reports that described mentoring as part of a larger intervention program, but most involved peer mentoring (Elinoff 2006; Mahdavi and Smith 2002) and none entailed systematic outcome evaluations. For example, Mahdavi and Smith (2002) described the use of grade 12 students as mentors for bullied students in grade 7. Mentoring was part of a larger program called Bully Court that used peer representatives to conduct hearings and seek solutions to instances of school bullying. Elinoff (2006) relied on groups of peer mentors in grade 6 to teach a skills training program to children in grades 3–5. Both adult and peer mentors were part of the Peaceful School model for reducing school violence and peer victimization (Twemlow et al. 2001; Twemlow et al. 2005), but outcome data specific to mentoring have not been published. We did find published reports in which mentoring was proposed as a potentially useful strategy for bullied children (Espelage and Asidao 2001; Goldbaum et al. 2007). For example, Goldbaum et al. (2007) suggested that bullied children would benefit from "mentoring programs whereby small groups of students meet with a teacher to address non-academic concerns in a safe and non-judgmental environment" (p. 158). Similarly, in their interviews of 6–8th graders, Espelage and Asidao (2001) learned that several children considered mentoring a viable strategy for helping both bullies and victims.
Despite the potential benefits of school-based mentoring for bullied children, there are reasons to proceed with caution. Bullied children are often reluctant to seek help from others and are quick to dismiss help when it is offered (Fekkes et al. 2005; Rigby 2005; Unnever and Cornell 2004; Whitney and Smith 1993). School-based mentoring has the potential to draw further attention to bullied children; attention not welcomed by children already struggling with peer acceptance. Additionally, evidence for positive appraisals and minimal risks are also important in gauging the value of extending Lunch Buddy mentoring beyond a single semester. As such, assessing the degree to which Lunch Buddy mentoring is perceived as causing harm is an important goal of this preliminary investigation.
We believe Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring has the potential to be an effective form of selective prevention for bullied children in the elementary school grades. Because chronically bullied children are at risk for being easily identified and seriously victimized in later grades (Hodges et al. 1997; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1999), it seems prudent to intervene in the elementary school grades, prior to their transition to middle school. The chief aim of this preliminary study was to examine the degree to which Lunch Buddy mentoring led to short-term reductions in peer victimization.
We used a quasi-experimental design to explore the potential impact of mentoring on bullied children. We compared changes in peer victimization (fall to spring) for mentored children against changes exhibited by two matched control groups that were formed post hoc. To guard against possible treatment contamination (Kazdin 2003), one group comprised children who attended a different school from that of the target child. We reasoned that children attending the same school as the mentored child, especially children matched for gender and grade, might inadvertently experience the advantages of sitting near a lunchtime mentor, thus limiting our ability to detect potential differences between mentored and non-mentored children.
We also examined the degree to which bullied children and their mentors viewed the mentoring relationship as a positive experience. Additionally, we assessed parents' and teachers' satisfaction with the Lunch Buddy mentoring program. Finally, we assessed whether mentored children and their parents and teachers viewed mentoring as harmful to bullied children.
Abstract and Introduction
Abstract
This preliminary study tested the benefits of school-based lunchtime mentoring as a form of selective prevention for bullied children. Participants were 36 elementary school children in grades 4 and 5 who had been identified as bullied (based on child and teacher reports). Children in the Lunch Buddy program (n = 12) were paired with a college student mentor who visited twice each week during the spring semester of an academic year. Also participating were 24 matched-control children; 12 were from the same school as Lunch Buddy children ("Same" controls) and 12 were from a school different from that of Lunch Buddy children ("Different" controls). Results indicated that compared to Different control children, Lunch Buddy children experienced significantly greater reductions in peer reports of peer victimization from fall to spring semesters. Lunch Buddy children and mentors viewed the relationship as positive, and parents and teachers were very satisfied with Lunch Buddy mentoring. We discuss the implications of our findings for both research and practice.
Introduction
Much is known about universal interventions designed to lower the overall incidence of school bullying (Merrell et al. 2008; Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2004); far less is known about selective interventions designed specifically for bullied children (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Juvonen and Graham 2001; Pepler 2006). In this study, we consider the value of pairing bullied children with school-based mentors. Recent studies suggest school-based mentoring has beneficial effects on children's peer relationships (Herrera 1999, 2004), an area of functioning that is consistently shown to be problematic for bullied children (Card et al. 2007). Despite the appeal of school-based mentoring, we could find no studies that directly examined the benefits of mentoring interventions for bullied children. In this preliminary study, we examined the potential impact of pairing bullied elementary school children with a lunchtime school-based mentor.
Peer Victimization
Borrowing from prior research (Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Juvonen and Graham 2001; Olweus 1993), we define peer victimization as repeated exposure to peer interactions that (a) convey harmful intent; (b) produce harmful effects; and (c) are sanctioned, implicitly or explicitly, by peers. This definition emphasizes the chronicity and impact of bully behavior as well as its intent (Kochenderfer-Ladd and Wardrop 2001). Also recognized is the tendency for power differences to extend beyond the bully–victim dyad to include bystanders, supporters, and other peers who are witness to but not interveners in instances of peer victimization (Craig and Pepler 1997; Olweus 1993; Rodkin and Hodges 2003). Prevalence rates for peer victimization vary depending on the definition, the informant, the measure, and the developmental level of the children (Ladd and Kochenderfer-Ladd 2002; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Snell et al. 2002). Researchers commonly observe that middle school and high school students report less peer victimization than do elementary school students (Olweus 1993; Pepler et al. 2006). In contrast to grade-related declines in self-reported peer victimization are findings indicating that bullying is relatively stable over time and possibly increases till the end of high school (Smith et al. 1999). Smith et al. (2001) suggested that most children learn to cope with school bullying so that over time there are fewer victims; unfortunately, children who continue to be bullied are thought to be more easily identified and more seriously victimized (Hodges et al. 1997; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1999).
Serious risk associated with peer victimization is most evident for those children who persist as targets (Hanish and Guerra 2004; Pepler 2006). Chronic peer victimization has been linked with a number of negative outcomes including social isolation, feelings of loneliness, low self-esteem, and disrupted academic performance or school attendance (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Hawker and Boulton 2000; Ladd and Ladd 2001; Snell et al. 2002; Storch and Ledley 2005). Compared to non-victims, bullied children report more physical and psychosomatic complaints (Fekkes et al. 2006; Nishina et al. 2005), are more likely to exhibit heightened levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Hawker and Boulton 2000), and are more apt to have a psychiatric disorder (Kumpulainen et al. 2001). As adults, chronically bullied children are at risk for depression, self-criticism, and suicidal behavior (Olweus 1993; Rigby and Slee 1999). Kumpulainen et al. (2001) found that only 24% of victimized children were brought to the attention of mental health professionals, roughly half the rate at which bullies were treated.
The Need for Selective Prevention Strategies
Most anti-bullying interventions involve changing school-wide norms and structures (e.g., teacher supervision, consequences) so as to decrease opportunities and rewards for school bullying (Olweus 1993). Such programs, if faithfully implemented and continually supported, can lead to significant reductions in peer victimization (Merrell et al. 2008; Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2003, 2004; Stassen Berger 2007). However, replicating a successful anti-bullying program is not easy (e.g., Salmivalli et al. 2005) and negative outcomes have been reported (e.g., Brockenbrough 2001; Price and Jones 2001; Stevens et al. 2000). Because intervention researchers tend to use anonymous surveys to assess changes in overall levels of bullying and victimization (Chan et al. 2005; Stassen Berger 2007), it is unclear whether school-wide programs can significantly alter the risk trajectory of individual children who are chronically bullied.
Recently, scholars have begun to call for interventions that provide more focused support to bullied children (Card and Hodges 2008; Nation 2007; Pepler 2006). Unfortunately, there is an absence of sound research examining the feasibility and efficacy of selective interventions for bullied children (Gazelle and Ladd 2002; Nation 2007). Smith et al. (2003) identified three interventions designed for "specific pupils" (p. 592), but the emphasis in these programs was more on the bully than the bullied. Two approaches were tested empirically: the Method of Shared Concern (Pikas 1989) and the No Blame Approach (Maines and Robinson 1998). The Method of Shared Concern (Pikas 1989) has seldom been evaluated and the No Blame Approach (Robinson and Maines 1997) reportedly led to immediate success in 80% of cases (Young 1998; Young and Holdorf 2003). The No Blame Approach creates support groups of bullies and bystanders that work together to seek solutions (but not blame) to the problem of bullying. The approach has been described by its proponents as somewhat risky and "less likely to be put into practice" (Young and Holdorf 2003, p. 272).
There is evidence that social skills training can lead to gains in self-esteem and self-efficacy for children who are bullied, although the impact on children's bullying experiences has been less promising (Arora 1991; DeRosier 2004; Fox and Boulton 2003). DeRosier (2004), for example, found no posttreatment effects on self- or peer-reported victimization following a skills training intervention study that included a subgroup of bullied children. A follow-up study conducted by DeRosier and Marcus (2005) revealed a range of benefits for girls and also for children who were aggressive, but it was unclear what proportion of these groups had been bullied.
Youth Mentoring
Youth mentoring is often touted as an effective prevention tool (Dortch 2000), but there is a tendency for the practice and promotion of youth mentoring to outpace its empirical support (DuBois and Karcher 2005; Rhodes 2008). Traditionally, youth mentoring has entailed one-on-one visits with adult volunteers outside of school hours and away from school campuses. For reasons more practical than theoretical, organizations such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) are now placing strong emphasis on school-based mentoring programs: school-based mentoring can potentially attract greater numbers of volunteers who mentor for shorter lengths of time in settings that offer more structure and less risk (Herrera 1999, 2007). Recent studies reveal the promise of school-based mentoring as a preventative intervention for youth at risk for maladjustment (Cavell et al. 2009; Cavell and Smith 2005; Dubois and Karcher 2005; Herrera et al. 2007; Hughes et al. 2001; Hughes et al. 2005; Karcher 2005), but some studies reveal limited gains (e.g., Bernstein et al. 2009). In theory, school-based mentors have greater access to school and peer ecologies, thereby affording these mentors unique opportunities to enhance children's relationships with teachers and peers (Herrera 1999; Herrera et al. 2000). To the degree that schoolbased mentoring is beneficial to children at risk, it could serve as a low cost intervention that is relatively easily implemented and replicated.
One approach to school-based mentoring involves lunchtime visits with college student mentors (Cavell et al. 2009; Cavell and Smith 2005; Hughes et al. 2005). Cavell and Hughes (2000) found support for Lunch Buddy mentoring in a randomized clinical trial targeting aggressive, school-age children (N = 174). The findings were surprising because the Lunch Buddy program was designed as a control condition used to evaluate a more complex, multi-component intervention model that included three-semesters of community-based mentoring (Hughes et al. 2005). The original goal of Lunch Buddy mentoring was to offer an intervention that was appealing but essentially inert. Based on the prevailing assumption that a close bond is critical to successful mentoring (e.g., Rhodes 1994), Lunch Buddy mentors were given limited opportunities for relationship formation: (a) all visits occurred in the school cafeteria, (b) the lunch period lasted only 30 min, (c) other children were present at the lunch table, and (d) children were paired with a different mentor for each of three semesters.
Unexpectedly, children in the Lunch Buddy program evinced significant improvement over time (from pre to posttreatment and from pretreatment to the 1- and 2-year follow-up) on both parent and teacher ratings of externalizing behavior problems (Achenbach 2001a, b) and on teacher-rated behavioral and scholastic competence (Hughes et al. 2001, 2005). There were no significant between-group treatment effects immediately following the intervention, but significant between-group effects emerged at the 1- and 2-year follow-up for teacher-rated externalizing problems and for teacher-rated behavioral and scholastic competence (Hughes et al. 2001), as well as for child-rated school belonging 1-year posttreatment (Malcolm and Cavell 2006). In every instance, significant between-group treatment effects favored the less intensive Lunch Buddy program. Subsequent analyses involving aggressive children who remained in the same school throughout the three-semester intervention (n = 86) indicated that school context moderated treatment outcome: Lunch Buddy mentoring was particularly effective for those aggressive children who attended schools marked by high levels of playground aggression, economic disadvantage, and family mobility (Hughes et al. 2005). Lunch Buddy mentoring also appeared to be socially acceptable as an intervention. Children and mentors gave positive ratings to the Lunch Buddy program (Hughes et al. 2001), and school administrators requested that Lunch Buddy mentoring continue despite the end of the research project. (This same request was not made for the more involved experimental intervention.)
The fact that Lunch Buddy mentoring made few demands on children or staff could explain its appeal as well as its therapeutic impact. Unlike teacher-driven interventions or child-focused skills training, lunchtime mentoring did not directly target children's peer-related difficulties. Instead, it appeared that lunchtime visits with a valued mentor led indirectly to positive changes in children's peer ecology (Cavell and Smith 2005; Hughes et al. 2005; Malcolm and Cavell 2006). For example, in weekly logs and end-of-term papers, Lunch Buddy mentors noted that nearby lunch mates routinely inserted themselves into mentor-mentee interactions (Cavell and Henrie 2010). Mentors saw these "intrusions" as obstacles to forming a close, trusting relationship with their mentee, but Cavell and Smith (2005) speculated that mentors' involvement in lunchtime peer interactions altered the contingencies that governed those interactions, perhaps reducing social rewards for antagonistic behaviors and enhancing rewards for prosocial behaviors. Cavell and Smith also hypothesized that consistent visits from valued mentors led lunchtime peers to adopt more benign views of target children, many of whom had a negative reputation among peers.
School-based Mentoring as Intervention for Bullied Children
Some scholars question the utility of directly intervening in the problem of school bullying, suggesting instead strategies that are indirect and less stigmatizing (Galloway and Roland 2004; Salmivalli 1999). The challenge is to overcome peer-mediated contingencies and reputational biases that tacitly support school bullying while not causing harm to individual children who are identified and treated (Card et al. 2007; Pepler 2006; Rodkin and Hodges 2003; Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). If school-based mentoring has the potential to improve children's peer relationships (Herrera 1999, 2004), then perhaps children who are chronically bullied can benefit from lunch-time mentors. Indeed, Lunch Buddy mentoring could offer a unique solution to the dilemma of how to help bullied children who face an imbalance of power (Craig and Pepler 1997; Olweus 1993) but are reluctant to ask for or accept help (Fekkes et al. 2005; Rigby 2005; Unnever and Cornell 2004; Whitney and Smith 1993).
There are several mechanisms through which Lunch Buddy mentoring could benefit chronically bullied children. Given prior research indicating that adult monitoring of contexts that occasion bullying is critical to intervention success (Olweus 1993; Smith et al. 2004), the mere presence of an adult mentor could reduce school bullying during the lunch period. It is also possible that some mentors use praise or reprimands to alter the contingencies that maintain peer bullying, whereas other mentors might model conversational skills and conflict-resolution strategies that are adopted by bullied children and their lunchtime peers (Cavell and Henrie 2010). The desire to interact with a valued mentor could also mean that nearby peers begin to view bullied children (who are the focus of mentoring) in a less negative light (Hymel 1986). Over time, we hypothesize that bullied children consistently mentored in this way could obtain a level of social capital and peer connectedness that serves to protect them from future victimization (Card et al. 2007).
Despite the intuitive appeal of school-based mentoring, we could find no studies that examined the benefits of youth mentoring for bullied children. We did find three reports that described mentoring as part of a larger intervention program, but most involved peer mentoring (Elinoff 2006; Mahdavi and Smith 2002) and none entailed systematic outcome evaluations. For example, Mahdavi and Smith (2002) described the use of grade 12 students as mentors for bullied students in grade 7. Mentoring was part of a larger program called Bully Court that used peer representatives to conduct hearings and seek solutions to instances of school bullying. Elinoff (2006) relied on groups of peer mentors in grade 6 to teach a skills training program to children in grades 3–5. Both adult and peer mentors were part of the Peaceful School model for reducing school violence and peer victimization (Twemlow et al. 2001; Twemlow et al. 2005), but outcome data specific to mentoring have not been published. We did find published reports in which mentoring was proposed as a potentially useful strategy for bullied children (Espelage and Asidao 2001; Goldbaum et al. 2007). For example, Goldbaum et al. (2007) suggested that bullied children would benefit from "mentoring programs whereby small groups of students meet with a teacher to address non-academic concerns in a safe and non-judgmental environment" (p. 158). Similarly, in their interviews of 6–8th graders, Espelage and Asidao (2001) learned that several children considered mentoring a viable strategy for helping both bullies and victims.
Considerations when Intervening with Bullied Children
Despite the potential benefits of school-based mentoring for bullied children, there are reasons to proceed with caution. Bullied children are often reluctant to seek help from others and are quick to dismiss help when it is offered (Fekkes et al. 2005; Rigby 2005; Unnever and Cornell 2004; Whitney and Smith 1993). School-based mentoring has the potential to draw further attention to bullied children; attention not welcomed by children already struggling with peer acceptance. Additionally, evidence for positive appraisals and minimal risks are also important in gauging the value of extending Lunch Buddy mentoring beyond a single semester. As such, assessing the degree to which Lunch Buddy mentoring is perceived as causing harm is an important goal of this preliminary investigation.
The Present Study
We believe Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring has the potential to be an effective form of selective prevention for bullied children in the elementary school grades. Because chronically bullied children are at risk for being easily identified and seriously victimized in later grades (Hodges et al. 1997; Nicolaides et al. 2002; Smith et al. 1999), it seems prudent to intervene in the elementary school grades, prior to their transition to middle school. The chief aim of this preliminary study was to examine the degree to which Lunch Buddy mentoring led to short-term reductions in peer victimization.
We used a quasi-experimental design to explore the potential impact of mentoring on bullied children. We compared changes in peer victimization (fall to spring) for mentored children against changes exhibited by two matched control groups that were formed post hoc. To guard against possible treatment contamination (Kazdin 2003), one group comprised children who attended a different school from that of the target child. We reasoned that children attending the same school as the mentored child, especially children matched for gender and grade, might inadvertently experience the advantages of sitting near a lunchtime mentor, thus limiting our ability to detect potential differences between mentored and non-mentored children.
We also examined the degree to which bullied children and their mentors viewed the mentoring relationship as a positive experience. Additionally, we assessed parents' and teachers' satisfaction with the Lunch Buddy mentoring program. Finally, we assessed whether mentored children and their parents and teachers viewed mentoring as harmful to bullied children.