1. SRCD Biennial Meeting April 2003: The stability of victimisation behaviour University of Hertfordshire, U.K. VICTEC: Virtual ict with empathic Characters Sarah Woods, Dieter Wolke and Muthanna Samara University of Bristol, U.K.

2. Background Well documented evidence that social, cognitive, behavioural and family factors are concurrently related to bullying behaviour (e.g. Wolke et al., 2001). Few studies have considered the stability of victim roles and have instead focused on the stability of bully roles. Paucity of evidence concerning the risk factors associated with remaining, escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

3. Background Studies have tended to focus on secondary school samples rather than primary school. Little is known about the stability of relational victimisation in comparison to direct victimisation. Reliance on peer nominations (by class) does not allow for comparison of bullying frequency across schools.

4. Research Questions 1)What is the stability of direct and relational victimisation behaviour among primary school children in the U.K. over 2-4 years? 2) What combination of factors predicts: a)Remaining involved in victimisation? b)Escaping victimisation? c)Becoming involved in victimisation? for both direct and relational victimisation.

5. Study Design Longitudinal Investigation involving 17 primary schools in Hertfordshire & London, U.K. Baseline Assessment: Carried out 1996- 1998 with children aged 6-9 (years 2 & 4) Follow-up Assessment: Carried out when children were aged 10-11 (year 6) 2 or 4 years after the baseline assessment.

6. Sample Data N: 666 potential children from 17 schools N: 634 Assessed at baseline N: 432 Longitudinally Assessed N: 202 original drop-out (3% non consent, 12% absent, 85% moved school Time 1 Time 2

7. Instruments: Baseline & follow-up Standard Individual Bullying Interview or Q’aire (Olweus, 1991): TYPE –Direct Bullying (e.g. hit/beaten). –Relational Bullying (e.g. exclusion by friends). FREQUENCY –Never bullied: rarely/hardly ever bullied –frequently bullied: about once week/few times a week.

8. Instruments: Baseline Behaviour Problems Strengths & Difficulties Q’aire (Goodman, 1997) 1.Emotional Symptoms Total Difficulties2.Hyperactivity SDQ score3.Conduct Problems 4.Peer Problems 5.Prosocial Behaviour

9. Instruments: Baseline HEALTH Health Questionnaire (Wolke et al. 2001): 2 sections: 7 items about physical health problems (PHP) e.g. headache, tummy ache, sickness 7 items about emotional health problems (EHP) e.g. bed wetting, nightmares 7- point scale (0- 6 or more times over past 6 mths) 5 – point scale (never to most days over past 6 mths)

10. Instruments: Baseline Other variables measured: -Special Educational Needs (SEN) -No. friends/best friends -No. rejected children -Information about siblings -Child’s home situation (biological parents, single parent, etc).

11. Bullying Classifications Children were classified for direct (physical & verbal) bullying and relational bullying as: -‘pure’ bully -‘pure’ victim -Bully/victim -Neutral

12. RESULTS Drop-out analysis and relational bullying. Stability of direct and relational victimisation. Risk factors predicting remaining,escaping or becoming involved in victimisation.

13. Relational Bullying status and drop-out rate P <.01

14. Other factors associated with drop-out rates Children who had fewer friends within their class. Drop-outs rejected fewer children than those who remained in the study.

15. Risk Analysis Yes (a + b) Yes (a + c) No (c + d) No (b + d) a b c d Risk factor Outcome Primary outcome Risk factorPresentAbsentTotal Presentaba + b Absentcdc + d Totala + cb + dn

16. Relative risk and stability of victimisation Children classified as direct victims at baseline had a two fold increased risk of remaining a direct victim at follow-up compared to non-victims at baseline becoming victims at follow-up. No long-term risk for children classified as relational victims at baseline to remain a relational victim at follow-up.

17. Relative risk & stability of direct victimisation Victim N: 97 Not victim N: 335 Victim N: 104 Not victim N: 328 N: 37 (38.1%) N: 60 (61.9%) N: 67 (20.0%) N: 268 (80.0%) Baseline Time 1Follow-up Time 2 RR = 1.91; 95% CI 1.37 – 2.66, chi-square = 13.52, p < 0.001

18. Factors predicting remaining vs escaping direct victimisation 95% CI for AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) LowerUpper Few friends (1-4) 33.331.23 111.11 Gender (female) 28.872.41346.41 Physical Hlth probs (=> 1 prob) 11.271.20105.93 Model chi-square = 30.83; df = 11; p < 0.001, N: 52

19. Factors predicting remaining vs escaping relational victimisation 95% CI for AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) LowerUpper Male sibling (at least 1) 11.111.18100.00 Rejected children (>2) 8.200.99 68.23 Having friends (5-7) 7.461.02 50.00 Model chi-square = 16.61; df = 6; p < 0.011, N: 44

20. Factors predicting becoming involved in victimisation or remaining a non-victim 95% CI for AOR Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) LowerUpper Direct victimisation (N: 200) (chi-square = 8.31; df = 2; p < 0.02) Sibling mix (only brothers) 3.661.359.89 Relational victimisation (N: 234) (chi-square = 7.34; df = 2, p < 0.02) Emotional hlth probs (=> 1 prob) 2.011.093.71

21. Summary of findings: Drop-outs Relational Drop-outs: -Have fewer friends. -Are more frequently relational victims or bully/victims -Reject many children.

22. Summary: Stability of direct vs relational victimisation Direct victimisation is a stable behaviour among primary school children over 2 yrs. In contrast relational victimisation is not: -Relational bullying becomes more prominent over time. -Falling out with friends is frequent at primary school. -The most affected victims had left the school (selective drop-out).

23. Summary: Risk Factors Health problems served as a risk factor for prolonged victimisation: -More days absent from school. -Appear weaker to peers and easy target. Friendships are a protective factor: -Allow children to develop adaptive & successful coping mechanisms. Being female: -Females may not have other female or male peers to help protect against direct victimisation.

24. Conclusions Direct victimisation is a stable phenomenon already among primary school children. Relational victimisation is a less stable behaviour among primary school children. A lack of friendships, physical and emotional health problems and being female all serve as risk factors for remaining involved or becoming involved in victimisation.

25. Future Directions Important implications for early recognition of victimisation among primary school children. Befriending or peer network schemes. Early intervention strategies that allow learning and adaptive coping.

26. A New Intervention: Victec Victec (Virtual ict with Empathic Characters) is a European funded project which aims to develop a new and innovative approach to aid the reduction of bullying problems in schools through the use of synthetic characters and drama in a virtual learning environment.

27. Scenarios for VICTEC Our role is to help design scenarios for the VLE about bullying, victimisation and friendship for children aged 8-12 years old.

28. Victimisation Scenarios Work has commenced towards developing scenarios comprised of several episodes to depict bullying behaviour. There will be a maximum of 3 – 4 characters per episode (e.g. bully, victim and bystander). The environment to be modelled will focus on the school context.

29. Real vs Cartoon schools REAL CARTOON

30. Victimisation Scenarios The scenario will begin with an introduction to the main character (e.g. victim). A tour of the school and classroom will then be given highlighting some of the schooling history and the other characters. The first victimisation event will then occur. The victim will ask the user what he/she should do?

31. Victimisation Scenarios Several subsequent episodes will follow depicting similar incidents of direct victimisation but maybe in different locations. Users will be given the opportunity to try out different coping responses after each episode. Justification questions are to be used throughout the VL interaction (e.g. Why did you choose to tell the teacher?)

32. Victimisation Scenarios Theory of Mind (ToM) questions are to be asked at some point during the VL interaction to determine whether there are individual differences between b, v, b/v. Possible endings for the scenarios might be to give the child a summary story that has been generated during the VL interaction.

33. The VLE Demonstrator