Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Aug 7.
Published in final edited form as: Aggress Behav. 2019 Aug 20;45(6):643–651. doi: 10.1002/ab.21858

Effects of Cooperative Learning on Peer Relations, Empathy, and Bullying in Middle School

Mark J Van Ryzin 1,*, Cary J Roseth 2
PMCID: PMC7413077  NIHMSID: NIHMS1612888  PMID: 31432535

Abstract

Although researchers have developed prevention programs to reduce bullying, the results are mixed, and this may be due to a degree of uncertainty in their theoretical foundation. In particular, these programs share an emphasis on empathy as a personal attribute that can be enhanced among students through the application of specific curricula that will, in turn, contribute to a reduction in bullying behavior. However, the link between empathy and bullying is unclear, as is the ability of bullying prevention programs to actually impact student empathy. In this study, we used a cluster randomized trial (N = 15 middle schools, 1,890 students, 47.1% female, 75.2% White) to evaluate the impact of cooperative learning on bullying, and evaluated whether these effects were mediated by empathy and peer relatedness. Our results indicated that cooperative learning can significantly reduce bullying, and that some of this effect is transmitted via enhancements to affective empathy. Cooperative learning also demonstrated significant positive effects on cognitive empathy, but this did not have an effect on bullying. We also found that the effects of cooperative learning on cognitive and affective empathy were mediated by improvements in peer relatedness. These findings add a degree of clarity to the literature, which to date has found mixed results when evaluating links between empathy and bullying. Our results also represent the first time, as far as we are aware, that an anti-bullying program has been found to have significant effects on both cognitive and affective empathy.

Keywords: bullying, empathy, relatedness, cooperative learning, middle school

Anywhere from a quarter to a third of all students are bullied by peers at some point during their school years (Craig et al., 2009; World Health Organization, 2012). This experience is often highly stressful, particularly for adolescents, who are undergoing specific cognitive and social changes that render them uniquely vulnerable to bullying. For example, children begin to exhibit a physiological stress response in early adolescence (Stroud et al., 2009), and adolescents also experience a developmental deficit in self-regulatory capability (Casey, Geidd, & Thomas, 2000). As a result, bullying has been linked to a variety of emotional and behavioral problems in later adolescence and early adulthood, including an increased likelihood of violent behavior, drug use, and suicide (Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Ttofi, Farrington, & Lösel, 2012; Ttofi et al., 2016; Van Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon, 2014). Unfortunately, the transition to middle school is often accompanied by a surge in bullying and aggressive behavior (Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013), suggesting the need for effective bullying prevention programs for this age group.

Although researchers have developed prevention programs to reduce bullying, the results are mixed (Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008). Meta-analyses of whole-school anti-bullying programs have found significant but small effects, and effects have tended to reflect positive changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions rather than change in actual behavior (Ferguson, Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). A more recent meta-analysis reached similar conclusions, finding that effects were statistically significant but small (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Bullying prevention programs have also been found to be more effective outside of the United States as compared to within the U.S. (Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014). In addition, effects of bullying prevention programs tend to be weaker when study designs are more stringent (i.e., randomized trials; Langford et al., 2015). Finally, effects of anti-bullying programs have been found to be stronger in elementary school than in middle and high school, with a precipitous drop in effectiveness starting around 7th grade (Yeager et al., 2015); the authors speculated that this reflected programmatic curricula that was perceived as directive and controlling, which goes against the adolescent drive for increased autonomy.

The uneven results for bullying prevention programs to date may indeed be due to a mis-fit between adolescent needs and existing anti-bullying curricula. Thus, one of the primary goals of this study is to extend earlier research on a different (i.e., non-curricular) approach to bullying prevention. At the same time, however, we also wish to bring a greater degree of clarity to the theoretical foundation for bullying prevention. In particular, existing prevention programs share an emphasis on empathy as a personal attribute that can be enhanced among students through the application of specific curricula that will, in turn, contribute to a reduction in bullying behavior. Unfortunately, the empirical literature is far from clear on the merits of this theoretical formulation. Some research has found a significant negative relationship between empathy and various types of aggressive behavior, including bullying (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004; Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015; Van Langen, Wissink, Van Vugt, Van der Stouwe, & Stams, 2014; Zych, Ttofi, & Farrington, 2019), and most of this research has implicated affective empathy (i.e., empathetic concern, or experiencing the emotions of another) as having a significant negative relationship with bullying, whereas cognitive empathy (i.e., perspective-taking, or understanding the emotions of another) has been found, in many studies, to have little to no influence on bullying (Gini, Albiero, Benelli, & Altoè, 2007; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2011; Stavrinides, Georgiou, & Theofanous, 2010). According to theory, students with high affective empathy will be better able to experience the negative emotional reaction of a bullied classmate and will thus be less inclined to continue bullying or to bully others in the future. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, only suggests the ability to understand another’s emotions, but not to experience them vicariously, and thus may be insufficient to inhibit bullying behavior.

Although the theory is credible, other research finds that cognitive empathy is, in fact, significantly related to bullying, either negatively (Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012; Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015; van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015) or, in some cases, positively (Caravita, Di Blasio, & Salmivalli, 2009). This variance in findings may be because much of the research is cross-sectional and/or observational, and thus reflects correlational rather than causal links. Research that links empathy to bullying within an experimental framework (i.e., in the context of a randomized trial) would be more conclusive, but no research to date has evaluated the relationship between bullying and empathy in this manner.

At the same time, little research to date has evaluated the potential for enhancing empathy among adolescents. A recent meta-analysis found that most research on empathy training has been conducted with college or adult populations, and the few studies involving adolescents did not demonstrate a significant overall effect (Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016). Another recent review examined the effects of social-emotional learning (SEL) programs on empathy and found very few studies with adolescent samples, and even fewer that used a randomized design (Malti, Chaparro, Zuffianò, & Colasante, 2016; see Table 2). In addition, bullying prevention programs have rarely been evaluated for their effects on empathy among adolescents, and the limited research that does exist demonstrates null effects (Kärnä et al., 2013). Thus, not only is the relationship between empathy and bullying unclear, but it is also unclear whether school-based programs can enhance empathy in adolescent populations.

Table 2.

Correlations and descriptive data (Level 1)

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Peer Relatedness (W1) —
2. Peer Relatedness (W2) .50*** —
3. Cognitive Empathy (W1) .02 .00 —
4. Cognitive Empathy (W2) .01 .15*** .30*** —
5. Cognitive Empathy (W3) .02 .01 .26*** .30*** —
6. Affective Empathy (W1) −.06* −.06* .21*** .16*** .16*** —
7. Affective Empathy (W2) .02 .11*** .19*** .33*** .22*** .47*** —
8. Affective Empathy (W3) .04 .01 .09** .20*** .41*** .38*** .47*** —
9. Bullying (W1) −.17*** −.07* −.07* −.11*** −.07* −.07* −.09** −.13*** —
10. Bullying (W2) −.07* −.21*** −.07* −.26*** −.07* −.04 −.15*** −.11*** .43*** —
11. Bullying (W3) −.06 −.03 .01 −.09** −.22*** −.10** −.11*** -.27*** .39*** .44*** —
12. Bullying (W4) −.04 −.02 −.02 −.11*** −.14*** −.04 −.08* −.19*** .32*** .37*** .49*** —
13. Sex −.05* −.11*** .11*** .10*** .11*** .24*** .29*** .26*** -.06 −.04 −.04 −.08** —
N 1447 1513 1449 1532 1565 1449 1531 1566 1453 1533 1568 1476 1856
M 3.07 2.97 4.07 3.99 3.92 3.38 3.40 3.37 .26 .31 .34 .39 .48
SD .68 .76 .84 .94 .94 .93 .96 .97 .50 .53 .60 .65 -
Open in a new tab
***

p < .001.

Bullying and Cooperative Learning

In previous research, an instructional approach known as cooperative learning has been found to reduce bullying and victimization among marginalized students and to promote higher levels of peer relatedness (i.e., perceived acceptance from peers), with moderate-to-large effect sizes (Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2018a). In contrast to didactic approaches to instruction, cooperative learning uses carefully structured group-based learning activities. Interpersonal contact during cooperative learning is guided by Contact Theory (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998), which specifies the conditions under which social contact can lead to the reduction of biases and prejudices. These conditions include: (a) individuals are brought together as equals, with differences in social status being explicitly minimized; (b) pairs or groups of individuals must be given a common goal to direct their interactions, and must be incented to work together to achieve their goal (i.e., positive interdependence); (c) the social contact must involve an extended amount of face-to-face interaction time, preferably including mutual disclosure to assist in discovering areas of commonality; and (d) those in positions of authority (i.e., teachers) must explicitly encourage and support positive, collaborative interactions and discourage any hints of ingroup vs. outgroup bias or prejudice.

Research on Contact Theory not only demonstrates that this sort of structured interpersonal contact can reduce bias and prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), but also finds that enhancements to empathy can mediate these effects (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). The structured interpersonal contact specified by Contact Theory is also central to cooperative learning, suggesting that well-designed cooperative learning lessons could have a significant impact on student empathy. To date, however, cooperative learning has not been tested for its ability to enhance adolescent empathy.

Contact Theory researchers have hypothesized that interpersonal contact, when structured as specified above, enhances empathy by improving interpersonal relationships (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Specifically, structured contact is hypothesized to increase self-disclosure, which enhances interpersonal affect while providing insight into the concerns and perspectives of others. Similarly, research on cooperative learning finds strong positive effects on peer relations (Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). Students in cooperative groups tend to interact in ways that promote goal attainment, such as helping each other and sharing information and resources (Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, & Shin, 2014). The positive feelings that arise from these collaborative, supportive interactions tend to be transferred to the group members who promote one’s success, resulting in a “benign spiral” that further increases positive social interactions (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). In addition, when using cooperative learning, teachers are trained to reinforce the use of positive social skills by observing student interactions during learning activities and recording the number of times students exhibit particular kinds of positive, helpful behavior (Johnson et al., 2013). Finally, after the lesson is complete, students are instructed to find something specific and positive to say about each person’s contribution to the group’s performance, further cementing the positive relations that arose during the lesson. We propose that this focus on social contact and the development of social skills enables cooperative learning to promote positive peer relations, which supports the development of empathy in students and, in turn, reduces bullying.

The Present Study

Using a small-scale cluster randomized trial of the Johnsons’ approach to cooperative learning (Johnson et al., 2013), we will evaluate the following hypotheses:

  1. Cooperative learning will significantly reduce bullying over a two-year period;

  2. The effects of cooperative learning on bullying will be mediated by gains in student empathy; and,

  3. The effects of cooperative learning on empathy will be mediated by the development of more positive peer relations.

The theoretical model is shown in Figure 1. We included both cognitive and affective empathy in our model, but given the uncertain nature of the literature, we had no a priori hypotheses regarding which aspect of empathy may serve as a mediator of effects on bullying. Finally, given sex differences in the link between empathy and bullying (Caravita et al., 2009; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006a), we evaluated sex differences in our models.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Full model. Peer Related = Peer Relatedness. Cog Emp = Cognitive Empathy. Aff Emp = Affective Empathy. Latent constructs are linear growth curve slopes; models also included intercept terms (not pictured).

Method

All aspects of this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the Oregon Research Institute. This study was registered as trial NCT03119415 in ClinicalTrials.gov under Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act.

Sample

The sample was derived from a small-scale randomized trial of cooperative learning in 15 rural middle schools in the Pacific Northwest. Schools were matched based upon size and demographics (e.g., free/reduced lunch percentage) and randomized to condition (i.e., intervention vs. waitlist control). We were concerned about the likelihood of losing schools assigned as controls, so we randomized an extra school to this condition (i.e., 8 waitlist-control vs. 7 intervention schools).

Our analytic sample included N = 1,890 students who enrolled in the project during the 2016–2017 or 2017–2018 school years. We achieved greater than 80% student participation at each data collection point by using a passive consent procedure and providing research staff to oversee the data collection. We also offered compensation to the schools for participating in the project, and enrolled participating students in a prize raffle. Student demographics by school are reported in Table 1. Overall, the sample was 47.1% female (N = 890) and 75.2% White (N = 1,421). Other racial/ethnic groups included Hispanic/Latino (13.2%, N = 249), multi-racial (5.3%, N = 100), and American Indian/Alaska Native (3.1%, N = 58); our sample included less than 1% Asian, African-American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Overall, 13.9% (N = 262) were reported as having Special Ed status, 78.6% (N = 1486) did not have Special Ed status, and 7.5% (N = 142) were missing this designation. Free-and-reduced-price lunch (FRPL) status was not made available by the schools, although school-level FRPL figures (obtained from state records) are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive data by school

School Intervention N % female % White % Special Ed % FRPLa
1 Yes 282 47.9 73.0 11.7 53
2 Yes 61 52.5 75.4 16.4 66
3 Yes 110 40.0 60.9 n/a 62
4 No 114 47.4 93.0 24.6 65
5 Yes 112 50.0 83.0 15.2 72
6 Yes 121 47.1 90.1 19.8 71
7 No 53 41.5 92.5 18.9 33
8 Yes 105 46.7 78.1 10.5 57
9 No 71 45.1 81.7 19.7 45
10 Yes 84 33.3 72.6 4.8 95
11 No 183 44.8 65.0 17.5 61
12 No 239 51.0 48.5 13.0 84
13 No 197 49.2 90.4 11.7 66
14 No 50 48.0 88.0 16.0 39
15 No 108 51.9 80.6 15.7 46
Open in a new tab
a

State records.

Note. One school did not provide Special Ed status.

Procedure

Training for intervention school staff began in the fall of 2016 and continued throughout the 2016–2017 school year, consisting of 3 half-day in-person sessions, periodic check-ins via videoconference, and access to resources (e.g., newsletters). The three in-person training sessions per school were conducted in (1) late September and early October, (2) late October through early December, and (3) late January through late March. Training sessions were conducted by D. W. and R. T. Johnson, supported by the authors, and utilized Cooperation in the Classroom, 9th Edition by Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2013); each staff member was given a copy of the book. Due to the geographic dispersal of the schools, each school received training individually according to their own schedule for professional development. Finally, we conducted a one-day administrator training during the summer of 2017, and a half-day follow-up training in the second year.

Under the Johnson’s approach, cooperative learning can include reciprocal teaching (e.g., Jigsaw), peer tutoring, collaborative reading, and other methods in which peers help each other learn in small groups under conditions of positive interdependence. The Johnsons’ approach also emphasizes individual accountability, explicit coaching in collaborative social skills, a high degree of face-to-face interaction, and guided processing of group performance. Cooperative learning is viewed as a conceptual framework within which teachers can apply the basic concepts to design their own group-based activities using existing curricula.

Measures

Student data collection was conducted in September/October and March/April of the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 school years (4 waves in total) using on-line surveys (i.e., Qualtrics; https://www.qualtrics.com/). To assess fidelity of implementation, we also conducted teacher observations. A Certificate of Confidentiality was obtained for these data from NIAAA (#CC-AA-17–011). To shrink the overall number of items and reduce participant burden, existing data from other studies were used to select the highest-loading items from each scale below (additional information available from the first author).

Peer relatedness

We used 4 items from the Relatedness Scale, which has been used in previous research as a predictor of positive school adjustment in adolescents (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Items included “When I’m with my classmates, I feel accepted” and “When I’m with my classmates, I feel unimportant” (reverse scored). Students responded on a 4-point scale from 1 (Not at all true) to 4 (Very true). Items were averaged to arrive at the scale score. Alpha reliability was .71 at wave 1 and .79 at wave 2.

Empathy

We assessed empathy using a subset of items from the Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006b). Cognitive empathy was assessed using 3 items, including “I can usually realize quickly when a friend is angry” and “I can often understand how people are feeling even before they tell me”. Affective empathy was assessed using 3 items, including “After being with a friend who is sad about something, I usually feel sad” and “I can often understand how people are feeling even before they tell me”. Students responded on a 5-point scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (7 or more times) and items were averaged to arrive at the final scores. Alpha reliability was between .69 and .78 for Waves 1–3.

Bullying

We assessed bullying using a subscale from the University of Illinois Bully Scale (Espelage & Holt, 2001). We used 5 items, including “I teased other students while we were in a group” and “I spread rumors about other students”. Students responded on a 5-point scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (7 or more times) and items were averaged to arrive at the final scores. Alpha reliability was .74 to .83 for Waves 1–4.

Demographics

Sex was collected from school records and coded as Male (0) vs. Female (1).

Observed intervention fidelity

Research staff blind to intervention assignment observed teaching practices in intervention and control schools. We trained our observers to adequate reliability using simulated data before they were permitted to conduct observations in actual classrooms, and we used an established observation protocol for key aspects of cooperative learning (e.g., positive interdependence; Krol, Sleegers, Veenman, & Voeten, 2008; Veenman et al., 2002). Observations were conducted once in the late fall/early winter and again in the spring. Observers remained in a classroom for an entire class period.

Analysis Plan

A test of mediation traditionally includes an initial direct-effects model that tests the path between the predictor and outcome (commonly referred to as “path c”), followed by a mediation model in which the following paths are tested: the predictor to the presumed mediator (“path a”), the mediator to the outcome (“path b”), and the combined indirect effect of the predictor on the outcome via the mediator, while controlling for the direct effect (commonly referred to as “path c’”, or “path c-prime”; Judd, Kenny, & McClelland, 2001; MacKinnon & Dwyer, 1993).

Thus, we initially tested a direct-effects model for bullying (referred to in the Results section as “Model 1”). We used all four waves of measurement in a latent growth curve and evaluated intervention effects on the linear slope (i.e., the change in bullying during the project). Next, we evaluated cognitive and affective empathy as mediators of these effects using linear growth curve terms that included the first three waves of measurement (i.e., Model 2). We calculated the indirect effects of the intervention on bullying by means of both forms of empathy. Finally, we added peer relatedness to the model as a mediator of intervention effects on empathy, and tested the indirect pathway to both forms of empathy (i.e., Model 3). We used peer relatedness from wave 2, controlling for wave 1 levels, to represent change, as two time points are not sufficient to create a latent growth curve. The full model (i.e., Model 3) is represented in Figure 1. At each step, we tested for sex differences. All linear growth curve slopes were regressed on the corresponding intercept terms, and intercept terms were allowed to correlate with each other.

We fit these models using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) and Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation with robust standard errors, which can provide unbiased estimates in the presence of missing data and/or non-normal distributions (Enders & Bandalos, 2001). Mplus also enabled us to account for the nesting in the data and calculate appropriate standard errors; however, sample size limitations prevented us from including random effects in the model, so all effects were fixed. For each model, standard measures of fit are reported, including the chi-square (χ2), comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormed or Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). CFI values greater than .95, TLI values greater than .90, and RMSEA values less than .05 indicate good fit (Bentler, 1990; Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Descriptive data for all variables and correlations are presented in Table 2. Female students reported lower levels of relatedness (r = −.05 to −.11) and bullying (r = −.06 to −.08, with some correlations being non-significant), and higher levels of cognitive (r = .10 to .11) and affective (r = .24 to .29) empathy. ANOVA models indicated that students in intervention and control schools did not differ in terms of baseline levels of bullying [F(1,1451) = 1.99, ns], cognitive empathy [F(1,1447) = 3.38, ns], or peer relatedness [F(1,1445) = .04, ns]. Control schools were slightly higher in terms of affective empathy at baseline, M = 3.43 vs. 3.33 [F(1,1445) = 4.10, p < .05], but this effect was very small, R2 < .01. With regards to fidelity observations, ANOVA indicated significantly higher levels of observed positive interdependence in intervention schools as compared to control schools, F(1,98) = 10.79, p < .01, R2 = .10.

We first evaluated the direct effects of cooperative learning on bullying. Model fit was adequate, χ2(8) = 5.38, ns; CFI = 1.00; TLI = 1.00; RMSEA = .000 (90% C.I.: .000-.020). Results are provided in Table 3 (see Model 1). Intervention effects were significant and moderate. Sex differences were not significant, χ2(1) = .66, ns.

Table 3.

Model effects

Model 1
Model path β Sig Males Females
Cooperative learning → Bullying (Slope) −.30 p < .001 - -
Model 2
Cooperative learning → Bullying (Slope) −.18 p = .002 - -
Cooperative learning → Cog Emp (Slope) .45 p = .001 - -
Cooperative learning → Aff Emp (Slope) .26 p = .045 - -
Cog Emp (Slope) → Bullying (Slope) .00 p = .988 - -
Aff Emp (Slope) → Bullying (Slope) −.39 p = .008 - -
Model 3
Cooperative learning → Bullying (Slope) −.14 p = .003 - -
Cooperative learning → Cog Emp (Slope) .33 p = .008 - -
Cooperative learning → Aff Emp (Slope) .20 p = .077 - -
Cog Emp (Slope) → Bullying (Slope) −.03 p = .733 - -
Aff Emp (Slope) → Bullying (Slope) −.31 p = .014 - -
Cooperative learning → Peer Related (T2) .18 p < .001 - -
Peer Related (T1) → Peer Related (T2) .43 p < .001 - -
Peer Related (T2) → Bullying (Slope) −.24 p = .005 - -
Peer Related (T2) → Cog Emp (Slope) .66 p < .001 - -
Peer Related (T2) →Aff Emp (Slope) .34 p < .001 - -
Open in a new tab

We next evaluated intervention effects with the mediators (i.e., cognitive and affective empathy) included. Model fit was adequate, χ2(32) = 137.16, p < .001; CFI = .96; TLI = .93; RMSEA = .042 (90% C.I.: .035-.049). Results are provided in Table 3 (see Model 2). The effects of cooperative learning on both cognitive and affective empathy were significant and moderate, but only affective empathy demonstrated a significant relationship to bullying. Consequently, the indirect effect of cooperative learning on bullying by means of affective empathy was significant (standardized effect = −.10, p < .05), whereas the indirect effect by means of cognitive empathy was not (standardized effect < .01, ns). Interestingly, the direct effect of cooperative learning on bullying remained significant even with the inclusion of cognitive and affective empathy in the model. Sex differences were not significant, χ2(5) = 2.67, ns.

Finally, we added peer relatedness to the model as a mediator of effects on empathy. Model fit was adequate, χ2(43) = 173.58, p < .001; CFI = .95; TLI = .92; RMSEA = .040 (90% C.I.: .034-.046). Results are provided in Table 3 (see Model 3). Cooperative learning predicted significant growth in peer relatedness, which in turn significantly predicted growth in both cognitive and affective empathy; indirect effects were significant (standardized effects = .12 and .06, respectively, both p < .05).

Cooperative learning continued to have a significant direct effect on both cognitive and affective empathy, even with peer relatedness in the model. In addition, peer relatedness had a significant direct effect on bullying, and the indirect effect of cooperative learning on bullying by means of peer relatedness was significant (standardized effect = −.04, p < .05). Finally, the indirect effect of cooperative learning on bullying by means of peer relatedness and affective empathy was significant (standardized effect = −.02, p < .05).

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated that cooperative learning can significantly reduce bullying across 7th and 8th grade. This finding is noteworthy given the weakness in current bullying prevention research, which demonstrates a decrease in effectiveness starting around 7th grade (Yeager et al., 2015). Cooperative learning presents a strong contrast to curricular approaches to bullying prevention, which may be perceived by students as directive and controlling; cooperative learning is a more active, empowered, student-centered form of learning, and preliminary research finds that cooperative learning can, in fact, promote students’ sense of autonomy (Hänze & Berger, 2007). Future research should explore this issue in more detail.

We also found that a portion of the effect of cooperative learning on bullying is transmitted via enhancements to affective empathy. Cooperative learning demonstrated significant positive effects on cognitive empathy, but this did not have an effect on bullying. Our findings add a degree of clarity to the theoretical foundation for bullying prevention, as the research to date has found mixed results when evaluating links between empathy and bullying. Our results also represent the first time, as far as we are aware, that an anti-bullying program has been found to have significant effects on both cognitive and affective empathy among adolescents.

We also found that the effects of cooperative learning on cognitive and affective empathy were mediated by growth in peer relatedness. These results suggest that the social nature of cooperative learning, and the emphasis on group work and collaboration, can enhance student interpersonal relations, and these improved relations and the concomitant experiential skill building in learning groups can contribute to a more profound understanding of the cognitive and emotional states of others. The improvement in social relationships may also support a greater degree of concern among students for the emotional state of their peers.

Interestingly, the indirect effect of cooperative learning on bullying via peer relatedness alone was significant, suggesting that other aspects of positive peer relations (besides their ability to encourage the development of empathy) may influence bullying behavior. For example, more positive peer relations may alter the social climate of the school, which may be able to reduce bullying (Thapa et al., 2013). Similarly, the impact of cooperative learning on bullying remained significant even with cognitive and affective empathy and peer relatedness in the model, suggesting that there may be other means outside the realm of peer relations by which cooperative learning influences bullying. Future research should explore alternative mechanisms of mediation, such as changes to class- or school-level behavioral norms or improvements in teacher-student relationships.

In contrast to some previous research, we found no significant effects of cognitive empathy on bullying. As noted above, findings for the link between cognitive empathy and bullying are mixed, with some research finding negative links, some research finding null links, and some finding positive links. This may be due to the correlational nature of much of the previous research, or may be related to the instability of empathy in children and adolescents (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). Our findings on cognitive empathy and bullying should be replicated in additional experimental research before they can be considered conclusive.

Limitations and Conclusion

Although this research has many strengths, including a cluster randomized design and longitudinal data, it is limited in several ways. First, it is based upon a relatively homogeneous sample of rural students that was about three-quarters White, which limits the external validity (generalizability) of the results. Second, all student measures were self-report, which limits internal validity. Future research should consider additional data sources, such as teachers and/or parents, and more diverse populations. Third, we did not consider issues such as defending in this paper, as our focus was on reducing bullying per se, not changing student response to bullying. And fourth, the small number of schools in our sample (i.e., 15) limited the complexity of the models that we were able to fit to the data and may have prevented us from finding significant effects in some cases.

In sum, this study contributes significantly to bullying prevention research. First, our results extend previous findings that cooperative can be an effective anti-bullying strategy in middle school; this stands in contrast to existing programs, which may be effective for elementary school children but can lose effectiveness starting in middle school (Yeager et al., 2015). Second, our results suggest that adolescent empathy can be enhanced, and not through the application of a specific curriculum, but rather through a series of positive group-based learning experiences, combined with an explicit focus on the development of group collaborative skills. Finally, we found that the enhancement to student empathy can significantly reduce self-reported bullying, at least with regards to affective empathy. Given that cooperative learning has already been demonstrated to have far-reaching effects (i.e., it can enhance academic motivation and achievement, and can reduce adolescent alcohol and tobacco use; Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, & Shin, 2014; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008; Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2018b, 2018c), we argue for an increased emphasis on cooperative learning as a school-wide prevention program that can have positive effects on a wide range of student behavior.

Acknowledgements

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) provided financial support this project (R34 AA024275; PI: M. J. Van Ryzin). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIAAA or the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Allport G (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bentler PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Caravita SC, Di Blasio P, & Salmivalli C (2009). Unique and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in bullying. Social Development, 18, 140–163. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Casey BJ, Geidd JN & Thomas KM (2000). Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychology 54, 241–247. DOI: 10.1016/S0301-0511(00)00058-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, Dostaler S, Hetland J, Simons-Morton B, ... & Pickett W (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54, 216–224. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Deutsch M (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–151. [Google Scholar]
  7. Deutsch M (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes In Jones M (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Enders CK, & Bandalos DL (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457. DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Espelage DL, & Holt M (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142. DOI: 10.1300/J135v02n02_08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Evans CB, Fraser MW, & Cotter KL (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 532–544. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ferguson CJ, Miguel CS, Kilburn JC Jr, & Sanchez P (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review, 32, 401–414. DOI: 10.1177/0734016807311712 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Furrer C, & Skinner E (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, & Altoè G (2007). Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33, 467–476. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20204 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gini G, & Pozzoli T (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123, 1059–1065. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2008-1215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hänze M, & Berger R (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and student characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, 29–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hu L, & Bentler PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. DOI: 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Johnson DW, Johnson R, & Holubec E (2013). Cooperation in the classroom (9th ed.) Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. [Google Scholar]
  18. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, & Maruyama G (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5–54. DOI: 10.3102/00346543053001005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Roseth CJ, & Shin T-S. (2014). The relationship between motivation and achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 622–633. DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12280 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Jolliffe D, & Farrington DP (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441–476. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Jolliffe D, & Farrington DP (2006a). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 540–550. DOI: 10.1002/ab.20154 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jolliffe D, & Farrington DP (2006b). Development and validation of the Basic Empathy Scale. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 589–611. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2005.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jolliffe D, & Farrington DP (2011). Is low empathy related to bullying after controlling for individual and social background variables? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 59–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Judd CM, Kenny DA, & McClelland GH (2001). Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs. Psychological Methods, 6, 115–134. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kärnä A, Voeten M, Little TD, Alanen E, Poskiparta E, & Salmivalli C (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 1–3 and 7–9. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 535–551. DOI: 10.1037/a0030417 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kokkinos CM, & Kipritsi E (2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41–58. DOI: 10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Krol K, Sleegers P, Veenman S, & Voeten M (2008). Creating cooperative classrooms: Effects of a two‐year staff development program. Educational Studies, 34, 343–360. DOI: 10.1080/03055690802257101 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Langford R, Bonell C, Jones H, Pouliou T, Murphy S, Waters E, … Campbell R (2015). The world health organization’s health promoting schools framework: A Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 15, 130 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1360-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. MacKinnon DP, & Dwyer JH (1993). Estimating mediated effects in prevention studies. Evaluation Review, 17, 144–158. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9301700202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Malti T, Chaparro MP, Zuffianò A, & Colasante T (2016). School-based interventions to promote empathy-related responding in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 45(6), 718–731. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2015.1121822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Merrell KW, Gueldner BA, Ross SW, & Isava DM (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42. DOI: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mitsopoulou E, & Giovazolias T (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Muthén LK, & Muthén BO (1998–2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7th Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pettigrew TF (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Pettigrew TF, & Tropp LR (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90(5), 751–783. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pettigrew TF, & Tropp LR (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.504 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Robers S, Kemp J, & Truman J (2013). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012 (NCES 2013–036/NCJ 241446). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. [Google Scholar]
  38. Roberts BW, & DelVecchio WF (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. DOI: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.I.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, & Johnson RT (2008). Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 223–246. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Stavrinides P, Georgiou S, & Theofanous V (2010). Bullying and empathy: A short‐term longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology, 30, 793–802. DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2010.506004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Stroud LR, Foster E, Papandonatos GD, Handwerger K, Granger DA, Kivlighan KT, & Niaura R (2009). Stress response and the adolescent transition: Performance versus peer rejection stressors. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 47–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579409000042 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Teding van Berkhout E, & Malouff JM (2016). The efficacy of empathy training: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 32–41. DOI: 10.1037/cou0000093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, & Higgins-D’Alessandro A (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. DOI: 10.3102/0034654313483907 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ttofi MM, & Farrington DP (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56. DOI: 10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, & Baldry CA (2008). Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: A systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, & Lösel F (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 405–418. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Lösel F, Crago RV, & Theodorakis N (2016). School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School psychology quarterly, 31, 8–27. DOI: 10.1037/spq0000120 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Langen MA, Wissink IB, Van Vugt ES, Van der Stouwe T, & Stams GJJM (2014). The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 179–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.02.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. van Noorden TH, Haselager GJ, Cillessen AH, & Bukowski WM (2015). Empathy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 637–657. DOI: 10.1007/s10964-014-0135-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Geel M, Vedder P, & Tanilon J (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA pediatrics, 168, 435–442. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Van Ryzin MJ, & Roseth CJ (2018a). Cooperative learning in middle school: A means to improve peer relations and reduce victimization, bullying, and related outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 1192–1201. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Van Ryzin MJ, & Roseth CJ (2018b). Enlisting peer cooperation in the service of alcohol use prevention in middle school. Child Development, 89, e459–e467. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Van Ryzin MJ, & Roseth CJ (2018c). Peer influence processes as mediators of effects of a middle school substance use prevention program. Addictive Behaviors, 85, 180–185. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.06.016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Veenman S, van Benthum N, Bootsma D, van Dieren J, & van der Kemp N (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 87–103. DOI: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00052-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. World Health Organization (2012). Risk behaviours: Being bullied and bullying others In Currie C et al. (Eds.), Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey (pp. 191–200). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. [Google Scholar]
  56. Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, & Espelage DL (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37, 36–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Zych I, Ttofi MM, & Farrington DP (2019). Empathy and callous–unemotional traits in different bullying roles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 20, 3–21. DOI: 10.1177/1524838016683456 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES