Change Processes in School-Based Mentoring for Bullied Children

ABSTRACT BODY:

Peer victimization involves repeated exposure to peer interactions that (a) convey harmful intent, (b) result in harmful effects, and (c) are sanctioned implicitly or explicitly by peers (Elledge, Cavell, Ogle, & Newgent, 2010). Bullied children can experience school-related difficulties and develop social and emotional problems during childhood and beyond (Card & Hodges, 2008; Hawker & Boulton, 2000).

Universal prevention programs can reduce overall incidence of school bullying but less is known about selective interventions for individual bullied children. One approach to selective intervention is Lunch Buddy (LB) mentoring, a form of school-based mentoring (Cavell et al. 2009; Elledge et al., 2010). Elledge et al (2010) paired bullied children with LB mentors who visited twice/week during lunchtime; mentored children were perceived by peers as less victimized compared to matched controls attending a different school. Elledge et al. speculated that LB mentoring works via changes in lunchtime peer relationships.

In this paper, we offer a preliminary look at possible change mechanisms in LB mentoring. In Study 1, we used qualitative data to examine how key stakeholders view LB mentoring processes. In Study 2, we tested whether LB mentoring is associated with positive changes in lunchtime peer relationships and whether those changes predict key outcomes.

Method

Study 1 was a small case study (N = 4) used to gather qualitative data from bullied children (4^th-graders), mentors, teachers, parents, and school counselor. Thematic analyses (Braun & Clarke, 2006) were used to identify strategies used by LB mentors that could benefit bullied children. In Study 2 we examined changes in lunchtime peer relationships for bullied children (N = 24) mentored for one semester. Children in this sample reported significant reductions in peer victimization following 1-semester of LB mentoring (Craig et al., 2012). We also assessed changes in lunchtime peer relationships via mentor and peer reports. After each visit, mentors rated target children’s lunchtime peer relationships. Peers rated (pre- and post-mentoring) how much they liked children who sat near them during lunch. These measures were used to predict post-mentoring levels of peer victimization (child, teacher, and peer reports) and social preference.

Results

Results of Study 1 revealed five primary strategies that are used by LB mentors to help bullied children. Results of Study 2 suggested Lunch Buddy mentoring can lead to gains in bullied children’s lunchtime peer relationships and that such changes can predict peer-reported victimization and class-wide social acceptance post-mentoring.  Findings were used to generate a working model of change processes in LB mentoring for bullied children.