Kari M Gloppen1, Amy L Gower1, Barbara J McMorris2, Marla E Eisenberg1. 1. University of Minnesota, 717 Delaware St. SE, Suite 353, Minneapolis, MN 55414. 2. University of Minnesota, 6-190 Weaver-Densford Hall, 308 Harvard Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0342.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peer harassment can have serious implications for students' success and well-being, and prevention programs need to consider the school context. This study aimed to: (1) identify groups of similar schools based on their risk and protective factors and demographic characteristics and (2) examine associations between school profiles and students' bullying involvement. METHODS: Data came from 505 schools and 122,106 students who completed the 2013 Minnesota Student Survey. School-level risk and protective factors and demographic characteristics were included in a latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify profiles of schools. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess associations between school profiles and peer harassment. RESULTS: Six qualitatively different school profiles were identified. Unadjusted models showed that schools with higher levels of risk had greater odds of peer harassment. However, after controlling for student-level risk and protection, regardless of school-level risk, students in metro-area schools with a more diverse student body reported lower odds of bullying involvement. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of the social environment into peer harassment. In addition to addressing student-level risk and protection, larger community factors and norms also need to be taken into account for developing, selecting, and implementing the most effective approaches to bullying prevention.
BACKGROUND: Peer harassment can have serious implications for students' success and well-being, and prevention programs need to consider the school context. This study aimed to: (1) identify groups of similar schools based on their risk and protective factors and demographic characteristics and (2) examine associations between school profiles and students' bullying involvement. METHODS: Data came from 505 schools and 122,106 students who completed the 2013 Minnesota Student Survey. School-level risk and protective factors and demographic characteristics were included in a latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify profiles of schools. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess associations between school profiles and peer harassment. RESULTS: Six qualitatively different school profiles were identified. Unadjusted models showed that schools with higher levels of risk had greater odds of peer harassment. However, after controlling for student-level risk and protection, regardless of school-level risk, students in metro-area schools with a more diverse student body reported lower odds of bullying involvement. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of the social environment into peer harassment. In addition to addressing student-level risk and protection, larger community factors and norms also need to be taken into account for developing, selecting, and implementing the most effective approaches to bullying prevention.
Authors: Amy L Gower; Myriam Forster; Kari Gloppen; Abigail Z Johnson; Marla E Eisenberg; John E Connett; Iris W Borowsky Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2018-08