Preventing bullying in schools is a long-standing goal of many research studies and school programmes. Despite the prevalence and severity of the problem, many interventions have so far proved only partially effective. However, some researchers argue that understanding exactly how these programmes work - i.e. what mechanisms lead to behaviour change or what role related protective and risk factors such as empathy, self-confidence or moral disengagement play in these interventions - is crucial. It is these questions that the research team led by our member Adam Klocek has tried to answer. The study focused on how these factors change over time or whether their interaction changes the implementation of KiVa, one of the most frequently evaluated anti-bullying programmes in the world.
The research team consisted of Adam Klocek from INPSY/Center for Psychotherapy Research, Lenka Kollerová, Jan Netík, Egle Havrdová, Giulio D'Urso and Marek Pour. The main aim of the study was to investigate the interrelationships between protective and risk factors at the individual level (i.e., for example, the aforementioned empathy or moral bonding) and victimization, bullying of others or well-being. In doing so, the team used longitudinal network analysis, which allows the dynamic relationships between phenomena to be tracked over time. In addition, the research team attempted to explore how these relationships differed between schools where the KiVa programme was running and schools where no programme was running. The study included 671 fourth and sixth grade students from 24 elementary schools. Half of the schools implemented the KiVa prevention programme, the other half served as a control group and the prevention programme was not implemented there until one year later.
Prevention programmes change the rules of the game - usually for the better, but often with reservations
The results of the study suggest that the KiVa program does indeed change the dynamics between the factors studied. Although the protective and risk factors worked as expected, they were less interrelated with each other and more linked to mental well-being in the intervention group. For example, a feedback loop emerged in the intervention group, where defending classmates from bullying led to higher mental well-being, which further fostered empathy and self-confidence - and these factors in turn fostered defending classmates. Thus, the program was able to help create an environment where positive behaviors were mutually reinforcing. Another interesting result related to moral bonding - that is, a situation where a child “justifies” his or her aggressive behaviour towards another by, for example, saying that the victim “deserved to be punished”. In the control group, this bonding with bullying reinforced each other over time. In the intervention group, however, this damaging relationship disappeared - the programme appears to have helped break the link between bullying and its reported moral justification.
On the other hand, some undesirable effects were also evident. In the intervention group, there is a mutual reinforcement between being bullied and being a victim of bullying. Thus, the bullied pupil may feel confident and stand up for himself through the intervention, but reacts back aggressively. This suggests that the programme may have encouraged some children to defend themselves but without sufficient guidance on non-violent strategies. Thus, the authors recommend paying more attention to this phenomenon of the “bullying victim” in the future and adapting interventions to provide more education on how to manage conflict non-aggressively.
When Knowing It Works Isn't Enough - But How it works
The study provides important insights into how KiVa-type interventions affect not only the reduction of bullying, but also how key psychological factors are related among elementary school students in the Czech Republic. The authors point out that the programme has had mostly positive effects, but that attention should also be paid to possible negative impacts and more in-depth research on collateral and unexpected consequences. They recommend that future research should work with a greater focus on classroom climate, norms, and collective dynamics and test what mechanisms of change actually work with respect to individual differences and classroom dynamics. Overall, the results suggest that the evolution of bullying and its prevention is more complex than often assumed - and that it is sophisticated analyses such as network modeling that can help to better understand how these programs work.
Recommended citation:
Klocek, A., Kollerová, L., Netík, J., Havrdová, E., D’Urso, G., & Pour, M. (2025). Longitudinal network associations between risk and protective factors for bullying, victimization, and well-being: Effects of an antibullying intervention. Personality and Individual Differences, 244, 113257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2025.113257
