08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Dispositional Mindfulness Plays a Major Role in Adolescents’ Active and Passive Responding to Bully-Victim Dynamics
Yael Malin
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Presenting Author: Malin, Yael
Bullying – a subset of aggressive behaviors characterized by repetition and an imbalance of power – is a cross-cultural worldwide phenomenon that causes harm and even trauma to many children and youth (Nielsen et al., 2015). Peer bystanders in schools provide an audience in 85% of bully-victim incidents but intervene to prevent the bullying only in 10% of them (Jeffrey, 2004). In their silence, they confirm the norm of bullying. While the vast majority of bystanders passively or actively encourage bullying, it is important to understand what the predictors of bystanding and defending behaviors are.
Empirical research showed that the presence of other bystanders leads to the diffusion of responsibility and reduces helping behaviors among children (Plötner et al., 2015). Past research focused only on the bully and the victim roles, however, current theory suggests a broader perspective including three bystander participant roles – outsider, pro-bully, and defender (Salmivalli, 2014). Among the intrapersonal parameters that are associated with these roles are empathy (Pozzoli et al., 2017), moral disengagement (MD; Thornberg et al., 2013), self-regulation (Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2021), and awareness of bystanders of their own role (Salmivalli, 2014). Specifically, mindfulness, as a present-moment awareness, is a protective factor in relation to bullying behavior (Georgiou et al., 2020) and may be relevant in relation to the other participant roles.
Empathy – the ability to identify and understand how someone is feeling and to respond appropriately (Davis, 2018) – was found to be negatively correlated with aggression and positively correlated with defending behavior among children (Nickerson et al., 2008). However, empathy does not always lead to prosocial action (Davis, 2018), and children often act in a manner that is not in line with their internal moral standard, known as moral disengagement (MD). MD plays a role in antisocial behaviors and is an important parameter in research on bullying in schools. Adolescents who scored high on MD self-reports were less likely to take the defender role and more likely to act as passive bystanders (Thornberg et al., 2013). Self-regulation, which is the ability to understand and manage one’s behavior and reactions to feelings and incidents happening around, may constitute a protective factor in relation to bullying behavior (Georgiou et al., 2020). Self-regulation is associated with healthy social relationships, while dysregulation is associated with aggressive tendencies (Valdés-Cuervo et al., 2021). Although the relationships of these three factors with aggressive behavior are well-established, much less is known regarding their association with the other participant roles.
Mindfulness – awareness of everyday life in a non-judgmental and non-reactive manner (Brown & Ryan, 2003) – was recently examined in relation to aggressive behavior among school children. This body of research shows that individuals who scored high in dispositional mindfulness, are less aggressive and that this relationship may be mediated by MD (Georgiou et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the relationship of mindfulness with the other participant roles is unknown.
The main goal of the present study is to examine whether empathy, MD, self-regulation, and dispositional mindfulness are related to the participant roles in the bully-victim dynamic amongst middle and high-school students. Since mindfulness, empathy, and self-regulation can be cultivated by mindfulness practice (Bishop et al., 2004), this understanding may have implications.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA total of 429 adolescents between the age of 13 and 18 without mindfulness experience were recruited through social networks. The final set compromised 394 participants (139 males, 255 females; mean age = 16.81 years, SD = 1.62). An a-priori power analysis was performed using G*Power software and indicated that a sample size of 119 participants is appropriate to detect a small-to-medium effect size (f2=.10), with a power of .95, meaning that our study is well-powered.
Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdowns, data collection was conducted online via Qualtrics software (https://www.qualtrics.com). In order to examine the association of empathy, MD, self-regulation, and mindfulness with the participant roles, participants completed a battery of questionnaires, as follows –
Empathic Responsiveness Questionnaire (ERQ; Olweus & Endresen, 2001) – 12 items that measure empathy through three subscales – empathic concern towards girls, empathic concern towards boys, and empathic distress.
Moral Disengagement Scale (MDS; Bandura, 2011) – 14 items that assess MD through four mechanisms – cognitive restructuring, minimizing one’s agentive role, distorting the consequences, and dehumanizing the victim.
Brief Self-control Scale (BSCS; Tangney et al., 2004) – 13 items that measure control over thoughts, emotional control, impulse control, performance regulation, and habit breaking.
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale Adolescents (MAAS-A; Brown & Ryan, 2003) – 14 items that measure mindfulness by items concerned with automatic behavior in contrast to mindful behavior in daily life.
Student Bystander Behavior Scale (SBBS; Thornberg & Jungert, 2013) – 12 items that measure three participant roles - defender, bystanders, and pro-bullying, in which the student evaluates his own typical behavior in situations of bullying.
In accordance with IRB requirements, the participants and their parents gave informed consent before participating. In return for their participation, ten gift vouchers were raffled.
All instruments were analyzed for their psychometric properties through Mcdonald’s omega and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). The main analysis included structural equation modeling (SEM) in which empathy, MD, self-regulation, and mindfulness were entered as exogenous variables, and the three participant roles— outsider, defender, and pro-bully—
were entered as endogenous variables. Gender and age were entered as observed variables. To evaluate model fit, various indices were examined including the χ2 goodness of fit statistic, the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe analysis of the model first showed a medium fit to the data, Χ²(8)=8.81, p=.030, RMSEA=.09 [.03 - .18], CFI=.92, and TLI=.56. Therefore, modification indices were examined in which several weak relationships were excluded – self-regulation and pro-bullying, self-regulation and bystanding, empathy and pro-bullying, empathy and bystanding, MD and bystanding, age and pro-bullying, age and bystanding, gender and pro-bullying, and gender and bystanding. The modified model was a good fit to the data Χ²(12)=15.38, p=.017, RMSEA=.03 [.00, .08] , CFI=.95, and TLI=.92 (see Figure 2). In the new model, empathy was associated with defending behavior, MD was associated with pro-bullying and defending behavior, self-regulation was associated with defending behavior, and mindfulness was associated with all three roles. All the model coefficients were in the expected direction and were associated with reasonable standard error.
It is noteworthy that mindfulness was the only independent variable that was associated with all the participant roles. This fact may suggest that individuals’ awareness of their role in stopping bullying incidents is stronger than feelings of empathy, self-regulation abilities, and MD tendencies. In addition to this theoretical contribution, this understanding might have practical implications. The current research examined mindfulness as a disposition but mindfulness can be cultivated by meditation practice (Bishop et al., 2004). Moreover, mindfulness recently has been suggested as a practice that was originally aimed at promoting morality and prosociality, which should be also the main core of education (Malin, 2022). From this point of view, mindfulness meditation can be used at school not only in preventing bullying but more important than that, in bringing the silent audience to defend the victim and show that aggression is unacceptable.
ReferencesBandura, A. (2011). Moral Disengagement. In The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. John Wiley & Sons,
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848.
Davis, M. H. (2018). Empathy: A Social Psychological Approach (M. H. Davis, Ed.; 1st ed.). Routledge.
Georgiou, S. N., Charalambous, K., & Stavrinides, P. (2020). Mindfulness, impulsivity, and moral disengagement as parameters of bullying and victimization at school. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 107–115.
Jeffrey, L. R. (2004). Bullying Bystanders. Prevention Researcher, 11(3), 7–8.
Malin, Y. (2022). Humanistic Mindfulness: A bridge between traditional and modern mindfulness in schools. Journal of Transformative Education, 15413446221084004.
Nielsen, M. B., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. B., & Magerøy, N. (2015). Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 17–24.
Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2001). The Importance of Sex-of-Stimulus Object: Age Trends and Sex Differences in Empathic Responsiveness. Social Development, 7(3), 370–388.
Plötner, M., Over, H., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Young Children Show the Bystander Effect in Helping Situations. Psychological Science, 26(4), 499–506.
Pozzoli, T., Gini, G., & Thornberg, R. (2017). Getting angry matters: Going beyond perspective taking and empathic concern to understand bystanders’ behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 61(1), 87–95.
Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant Roles in Bullying: How Can Peer Bystanders Be Utilized in Interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 286–292.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–324.
Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2013). Bystander behavior in bullying situations: Basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescence, 36(3), 475–483.
Valdés-Cuervo, A. A., Alcántar-Nieblas, C., Parra-Pérez, L. G., Torres-Acuña, G. M., Álvarez-Montero, F. J., & Reyes-Sosa, H. (2021). Unique and interactive effects of guilt and sympathy on bystander aggressive defender intervention in cyberbullying: The mediation of self-regulation. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106842.
08. Health and Wellbeing Education
Paper
Outcomes of a Teacher-led Mindfulness Intervention in Primary Schools: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial
Jon Quach1,3, Ben Deery1, Magaret Kern1, Lisa Gold2, Janet Clinton1, Emma Sciberras2
1University of Melbourne, Australia; 2Deakin University, Australia; 3Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Australia
Presenting Author: Quach, Jon
Objectives
This paper presents findings from the Minds@Play cluster randomized controlled trial. We aimed to determine whether:
- Compared to controls, children who receive a mindfulness intervention within the first years of primary school have better outcomes in the areas of attention, executive functioning, social-emotional well-being, emotional regulation and behavior;
- There are sustained changes in teacher practice and classroom interactions; and
- The implementation predicts the efficacy of the intervention and the cost effectiveness relative to outcomes.
Theoretical Framework
The importance of the early years of primary school: It is well established that the first three years of school are a critical period for later school success.(Cohen & Syme, 2013) The skills learned during these years include both traditional academic skills (e.g., reading) and cognitive and non-cognitive life skills (e.g., attentional control, self-regulation and social-emotional competence; Gutman & Schoon, 2013) Although these skills begin to emerge during the preschool years, these skills are further developed, reinforced and established during the primary school years.(Cohen & Syme, 2013; Duncan et al., 2007)
Impact of social isolation related to distance learning during COVID-19: Internationally, many jurisdictions introduced remote learning periods in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This dramatically limited the number of social interactions these children could have with their peers, at a period which is critical for their development not only academically, but also socially. Recent international reports have highlighted the substantial negative impacts on children’s mental well-being due to the COVID-19 pandemic. (Liu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020) Therefore, research needs to focus on the outcomes of these students once they recommence physically attending school. Focus is needed on both immediate and long-term outcomes.
Mindfulness as an approach for life skill development: Mindfulness is broadly defined as the ability to pay purposeful attention to a present moment focus, non-judgmentally, with acceptance or curiosity, bringing attention back if distracted.(Kabat‐Zinn, 2003) Numerous programs have been developed for both children and adults to build sustained attention, self-monitoring, self-regulation, switching attention, and selective attention(Lutz et al., 2008) as well as mental flexibility, engagement, openness, and creativity.(Pirson et al., 2012) Such programs propose that individuals can become more ‘mindful’ (characterized by improved attention, self-regulation and executive functioning) by learning and practicing these skills. It is possible that providing children with a mindfulness intervention that directly targets the skills required to make a successful transition back to physical schooling may have significant immediate and long-term outcomes.
Evidence and limitations for mindfulness-based interventions in primary school children: The rapidly growing interest in mindfulness-based interventions has been matched with a growing number of studies, reviews, and meta-analyses (Hwang et al., 2017; Maynard et al., 2017; Sedlmeier et al., 2012; Vøllestad et al., 2012). A systematic review by Dunning et al. (2019) found that across 35 studies, mindfulness interventions had positive effects on cognitive (effect size = 0.25), socio-emotional (effect size = 0.22), behavioral (effect size = 0.14) and academic (effect = 0.27) outcomes (Maynard et al., 2017). However, similar to other reviews, the review raised concerns about the quality of current studies on which existing evidence is based (Maynard et al., 2017). Control groups are often weak or non-existent, selective samples are used, measures are limited and rely on self-report, and methods are inconsistent. In addition, few studies have examined the use of mindfulness in young students during the primary school years. The lack of robust research can expose individuals to unintended and adverse consequences which may result from poorly or incorrectly implemented interventions focused on mindfulness.(Van Dam et al., 2018) There is a clear gap between interest and investment in mindfulness-based interventions in schools in early childhood.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedDesign: This is a cluster RCT with an embedded implementation and economic evaluation. This enables findings to inform the benefits of the intervention compared to current practice, identify for whom and under what conditions the intervention is beneficial, and indication of the intervention's cost-benefits.
Participants: 19 primary schools from disadvantaged areas were recruited due to the higher prevalence of social-emotional difficulties reported for students in these areas. All school entry students (age 6-7 years) were approached to participate, with a final sample of 706 children. Consent was explicitly forcused on participation in the data collection, with the intervention provided to all students in the classes.
Randomization: After baseline data collection, schools, stratified by school sector, were randomized to control or intervention by a researcher independent of the study team, and group allocation was concealed from research team members involved in data collection.
Mindfulness Intervention: Children were exposed to the intervention across two consecutive academic school years in 2021 and 2022.
In the schools randomized to intervention, teachers in each year received professional learning delivered via a self-directed online module, as well as a two-hour virtual workshop. The professional learning focused on the theoretical and practical foundations of the program and instructions for implementing the program. The teachers were asked to embed the 12-week intervention into their classrooms, using the manual to help them to learn, practice, incorporate, and reflect on the activities and strategies. The mindfulness program involved three core practice components, (i) mindful games/activities; (ii) mindful routines/transitions/moments; and (iii) use of props/books/music/art, which can be used within the classroom and integrated with normal teaching activities.
Outcome data: Outcome data was collected after the first (October 2021) and second year of the intervention (October 2022). On each occasion, data collection was conducted by research assistants blinded to the school’s group allocation.
Measures: Student, teacher and parent-reported measures were chosen to measure proximal and distal outcomes that align with our intervention’s theory of change (Dawson et al., 2019; Dunning et al., 2018; Maynard et al., 2017). Constructs included student social-emotional, executive functioning, attention and self-regulation, as well as teacher and parent mindfulness practice and well-being.
Statistical Analysis: Statistical analysis will follow standard methods for cluster randomized trials and the primary analysis will be by intention to treat. Multiple imputation will be conducted separately in the two groups using chained equations applied to all outcomes simultaneously, including baseline measures as auxiliary variables.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe final outcome data is currently being analysed and will be presented at the ECER annual meeting. This project is significant and innovative in that it:
• Trains teachers, providing a theoretical and practical foundation to the program, enabling the program to be integrated directly into classroom practices
• Tests the efficacy of a teacher-led mindfulness program.
• Targets at risk communities, local government areas which have a high proportion of children starting school with teacher-reported emotional and social difficulties that impact on their learning, providing early intervention and support for those at risk for poor academic and social outcomes.
• Uses a cluster randomized control design, addressing calls for more robust studies.
• Is provided across two years, providing a sustainable approach to developing attention, self-regulation and executive functioning skills.
• Considers the implementation, identifying for whom and under what conditions the intervention may be beneficial.
• Includes a cost-effectiveness analysis, providing the first economic evaluation of mindfulness interventions in primary schools.
Mindfulness has been proposed as one potential approach to meet these needs. Yet even as the use of mindfulness interventions appears to be beneficial in adults and growing in popularity, there are limited robust studies during the primary years. If our cluster RCT concludes that the intervention is effective, we expect the following outcomes:
• The best evidence yet that teacher-led mindfulness practices can be delivered in a whole-class approach to improve early school functioning and adjustment.
• A ready-to-use intervention that focuses on building teacher practice in primary school settings.
ReferencesCohen, A., & Syme, S. (2013). Education: a missed opportunity for public health intervention. Am J Public Health, 103(6), 997-1001.
Dawson, G., Clinton, J., & Quach, J. (2019). Editorial Perspective: Mindfulness: how do I describe thee? Let me synthesise the ways. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 60(7), 822–824.
Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., Pagani, L., Feinstein, L., Engel, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Devel psych, 43(6), 1428.
Dunning, D. L., Griffiths, K., Kuyken, W., Crane, C., Foulkes, L., Parker, J., & Dalgleish, T. (2018). Research Review: The effects of mindfulness‐based interventions on cognition and mental health in children and adolescents–a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Gutman, L., & Schoon, I. (2013). The impact of non-cognitive skills on outcomes for young people. Education Endowment Foundation.
Hwang, Y.-S., Bartlett, B., Greben, M., & Hand, K. (2017). A systematic review of mindfulness interventions for in-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 26-42.
Kabat‐Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness‐based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clin psych: Science and practice, 10(2), 144-156.
Liu, J. J., Bao, Y., Huang, X., Shi, J., & Lu, L. (2020). Mental health considerations for children quarantined because of COVID-19. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(5), 347-349.
Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends Cog Sci, 12(4), 163-169.
Maynard, B., Solis, M., Miller, V., & Brendel, K. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions for improving cognition, academic achievement, behavior and socio-emotional functioning of primary and secondary students. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13.
Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Psych Bul, 138(6), 1139.
Van Dam, N., van Vugt, M., Vago, D., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S., Kerr, C., & Gorchov, J. (2018). A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness. Perspect Psychol Sci., 13(1), 36-61.
Vøllestad, J., Nielsen, M., Nielsen, G., & Høstmark. (2012). Mindfulness‐and acceptance‐based interventions for anxiety disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Br J Clin Psychol, 51(3), 239-260.
Wang, G., Zhang, Y., Zhao, J., Zhang, J., & Jiang, F. (2020). Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. The Lancet, 395(10228), 945-947.
|
