Guidance and counselling approcach2

Guidance counsellor strategies for handling bullying

Michleen Power-Elliott* and Gregory E. Harris

Faculty of Education, Memorial University, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada

(Received 16 January 2011; final version received 7 October 2011)

The purpose of this exploratory-descriptive study was to examine how guidancecounsellors in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador would handle aspecific verbal-relational bullying incident. Also of interest was guidancecounsellor involvement and training in bullying programmes and PositiveBehaviour Supports.

Data for this study was collected using the Handling Bullying Questionnaire(Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008). Results suggested that guidance counsellorstended to take on various responsibilities in addressing verbal-relational bullying(e.g. work with victims and bullies, disciplinary) and tended to enlist the supportof other adults. It is argued that guidance counsellors assume important roles inaddressing school bullying and that training in this area is critical for guidancecounsellors. Study implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords: guidance counsellors; bullying; bullying intervention; counsellor dualroles

In Canada, as in other countries, bullying continues to be a concern in schools and

communities. Schools, a microcosm of society, are struggling to address bullying.

Guidance counsellors are one part of a larger system that impacts on bullying. Some

evidence suggests that guidance counsellors, because of their education, may respond

to bullying in unique ways as compared with other adults in the school environment

(i.e. teachers and administrators). The purpose of this study was to assess the role of

guidance counsellors in dealing with bullying. There is little research on the role of

guidance counsellors in the prevention and remediation of bullying and thus our

study helps to clarify the role of guidance counsellors in responding to bullying.

In the following discussion, we define bullying from a systemic perspective. The

important role played by adults and, in particular, guidance counsellors is

highlighted. Anti-bullying programmes and Positive Behaviour Supports (PBS) are

also considered.

Bullying defined

According to Olweus (1993), ‘A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she

is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more

students’ (p. 9). This definition includes three critical criteria: intention, repetitive-

ness and power imbalance (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Olweus, 2010). Twemlow and Sacco

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling,

Vol. 40, No. 1, February 2012, 83�98

ISSN 0306-9885 print/ISSN 1469-3534 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2011.646947

http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2011.646947

http://www.tandfonline.com

(2008) have incorporated the bystander audience as part of bullying, resulting in the

school as a whole becoming an active participant in the bullying process and part of a

system that has an impact on bullying.

Bullying can be physical (e.g. pushing), verbal (e.g. name-calling) or relational(e.g. exclusion). Bullying can also be direct or indirect. Direct bullying involves forms

of both physical and verbal bullying. Indirect bullying, or social aggression, uses less

direct forms of bullying such as spreading rumours or social exclusion (Bauman,

2008). According to research, indirect bullying is often perceived as less serious

(Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006).

In the current study, participants were presented with a verbal-relational bullying

scenario which contained elements of both direct and indirect bullying. The bullying

scenario presented had three components common to most definitions of bullying:deliberate intention to harm; repetition of the bullying behaviour; and a power

imbalance between the bully and the victim (Olweus, 1993).

Bullying from a systems perspective

According to Pepler, Craig, and O’Connell (1999), dynamic systems theory can be

used as a theoretical perspective to explain bullying. They argue that bullying is best

understood in the context of a social dynamic system where the bully and victim are

only two parts of a larger social system. The school environment is part of this social

system (Pepler et al., 1999). Bullying can be conceptualised as behaviour which is

influenced by a variety of systemic factors. Some of these factors may include: peer

influence (Burnes, Cross, & Maycock, 2010); parenting and the home environment(Pettit & Bates, 1989); neighbourhood (Hawkins et al., 2000); socio-economic status

(Whitney & Smith, 1993); school climate (Bonnet, Goossens, Willemen, &

Schuengel, 2009); cultural norms (Hilton, Anngela-Cole, & Wakita, 2010); media

(Barboza et al., 2009); and gender (Carbone-Lopez, Esbensen, & Brick, 2010). In our

study, guidance counsellors, and how they would respond to a bullying incident, were

the bounded subsystem of our investigation.

Guidance counsellors and school psychologists

Guidance counsellors and school psychologists play a role in school climate and

safety. Unfortunately, very little research exists on the role of guidance counsellors in

bullying intervention and prevention (Bradshaw, Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007). Arecent American study by Sherer and Nickerson (2010) showed that school

psychologists do use several anti-bullying strategies in their schools (e.g. counselling,

discipline).

Because of their formal education in empathic listening and relationship building,

guidance counsellors may view bullying in ways unique to them, and in contrast with

approaches taken by their teacher and administrative colleagues. However, within a

cohort of guidance counsellors there may be differing amounts of training in anti-

bullying, causing there to be some variation in responses to bullying within thegroup. For example, a 2007 study by Jacobsen and Bauman found that school

counsellors with anti-bullying training rated relational bullying as more serious than

counsellors who did not have such training, and counsellors who worked in schools

with anti-bullying programmes were more likely to intervene in incidents involving

relational bullying than counsellors who worked in a school without such

84 M. Power-Elliott and G.E. Harris

programmes. Bauman et al. (2008) compared teacher and guidance counsellor

responses to a bullying situation. They found counsellors were more likely than

teachers to enlist the help of other adults and work with the victims. Counsellors were

less likely than teachers to ignore or dismiss the situation and less likely to usepunitive measures. Bauman (2008), along with Jacobsen and Bauman (2007),

suggests that the school guidance counsellor is a logical person to take a leadership

role in addressing school bullying (e.g. through providing staff training, resources to

parents, counselling to students).

Anti-bullying programmes

Staff awareness of the prevalence and seriousness of bullying and recognition of the

need for a whole school approach are common elements in many school anti-bullying

programmes (Rigby, Smith, & Pepler, 2004), with most intervention programmes

focusing on systemic change rather than on individual change (Craig, Pepler,

Murphy, & McCuaig-Edge, 2010). However, there may be differences in the contents

of these programmes. For example, there may be different amounts of emphasis on

teacher training, prevention, intervention, surveillance and working with the students

identified as bullies (Rigby et al., 2004). Rigby (2008), Twemlow and Sacco (2008)and Craig and Pepler (2007) have all suggested that success rates of anti-bullying

programmes vary, with many being only moderately effective and some even making

bullying worse (see Craig et al., 2010 and Merrell, Isava, Gueldner, & Ross, 2008, for

reviews).

Positive Behaviour Supports

PBS emerged as a means to support individuals who had difficulty achieving theirlifestyle goals due to problem behaviour (Dunlap, Sailor, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). Its

conceptual framework is based on behaviourism (Simonsen & Sugai, 2009) and

applied behaviour analysis (Dunlap et al., 2009). On the whole, research is supportive

of the school-wide positive behaviour supports (SW-PBS) approach with decreases to

antisocial behaviour and improvements to school climate and academic success

(Sugai & Horner, 2008). The current study considered PBS along with other anti-

bullying programmes utilised by the study participants’ schools.

Methodology

Research design

Participants and sampling approach

The population for this study was all guidance counsellors in the four English-

speaking school districts in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and

Labrador’s population is relatively small, geographically spread out and largelyrurally based. The province has a total population of just over half a million people,

many of whom reside in rural communities. Like many regions in Canada, this rural

population is contrasted with a relatively large subsection of the population that

resides in an urban centre. The survey was administered using Survey Monkey, an

online survey software tool. Exactly 189 guidance counsellors were contacted via

email and provided with a link to access the informed consent form and

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 85

questionnaire posted on Survey Monkey. This was followed with a reminder email

two weeks later to request participation. Ninety-four completed the survey (49.74%).

As an incentive to participate, counsellors could enter their name in a draw to win a

$25.00 gift card.

Of the 274 schools whose guidance counsellors were surveyed, there were varying

school configurations as identified by the researchers, i.e. primary/elementary (K�6,

K�3, K�4); middle school (7�9, 7�8, 5�9, 4�7); high school (10�12, 9�12); all grade

(K�12); and multi-level (8�12, K�7, K�8, K�9, 7�12).

Questionnaire

The Handling Bullying Questionnaire was used in this study (Bauman et al., 2008) to

obtain an overall measure of how guidance counsellors in this province handle

verbal-relational bullying. The survey questionnaire contained 22 questions verbatim

from the Bauman et al. (2008) questionnaire with the exception of question #13

which read ‘I would ask the student’s teacher to intervene’ in the current study,

whereas in Bauman et al.’s (2008) survey it read ‘I would ask the school counsellor to

intervene.’ Since counsellors were the population being surveyed, the wording of this

question was changed. In addition to the 22-question survey, participants were also

asked demographic information (e.g. age, education, sex) and school information

(e.g. school location, type of school, bullying programmes).

Counsellors were given a bullying scenario containing both direct and indirect

bullying and were asked to choose, on a Likert scale from one to five, how likely they

were to react in the way specified by each of the 22 items. Scales corresponding to

five factors were: Work with the victim (e.g. I would suggest that the victim act more

assertively); Work with the bully (e.g. I would discuss with the bully options from

which he/she could make a choice in order to improve the situation); Ignore the

incident (e.g. I would leave it for someone else to sort out); Enlist other adults (e.g. I

would discuss the matter with my colleagues at school); and Discipline the bully (e.g. I

would make sure the bully was suitably punished). The higher the scale score on each

category, the higher the endorsement of that strategy.In the current study, reliabilities were examined using Cronbach’s alpha. These

values were: Work with the victim as .76; Work with the bully as .67; Ignore the incident

as .20; Enlist other adults as .64; and Discipline the bully as .65. These values all fell

within an acceptable range (Holden, Fekken, & Cotton, 1991) with the exception of

the Ignore the incident scale which had very little variability in its scores.

Table 1. Distribution of NL schools, guidance counsellors and guidance counsellors

surveyed.

School district

# of

schools

# of guidance counsellors

(population)

# of guidance counsellors invited to

participate in study

Eastern 122 120 118

Nova Central 67 30 30

Western 71 35 35

Labrador 16 6 6

Total 276 191 189


Study hypotheses for the current study

1. Guidance counsellors would elect to work with the victim, work with the bully

and enlist other adults. Given the therapeutic role of guidance counsellors in

schools and their roles as student advocates, the researchers hypothesised that

guidance counsellors would elect to work with the bullies and victims. In

addition, enlist other adults is a strategy strongly endorsed in most anti-

bullying programmes.

2. It is unlikely guidance counsellors would ignore the incident. School guidanceprogrammes include both personal and social development as part of the

guidance programming.

3. Given guidance counsellors’ therapeutic role, it is unlikely they would

discipline the bully. It was hypothesised by the researchers that guidance

counsellors would avoid the dual roles of therapist and disciplinarian, given

the contradictory nature of those roles.

4. Guidance counsellors’ age and sex would not significantly impact on the

above noted five composite scales. Consistent with Bauman et al.’s (2008)study, it was hypothesised by the researchers that age would not affect how

guidance counsellors would respond to items on the questionnaire. Also,

given participants’ counselling-based training, it was hypothesised that sex

would not significantly impact their responses to bullying.

5. Presence of a bullying programme and/or the practice of Positive Behaviour

Supports would be negatively related with the ignore the incident scale as well

as the discipline the bully scale but positively related with the work with the

victim, work with the bully and enlist other adults scales. Bullying programmesand PBS are integral programmes which contribute to positive school climate

and therefore contribute to the systemic factors that mitigate bullying.

6. Guidance counsellor training in bullying and/or PBS would be negatively

related with the ignore the incident scale as well as the discipline the bully scale

but positively related with the work with the victim, work with the bully and

enlist other adults scales, as training in such areas was hypothesised to

facilitate a therapeutic role between guidance counsellors and students.

Results

Study limitations

It is important to consider the study limitations prior to presenting the results. First,

the reliabilities fell within an acceptable range, with the exception of the ignore the

incident scale which had very little variability in its scores. Results from this scale

should be interpreted with caution. Second, there were small numbers of participants

in certain variable groups (e.g. those not implementing PBS), reducing the power

within such analyses. Third, like Bauman et al.’s (2008) study, this study is based on

what counsellors thought they might do, given this scenario of verbal-relational

bullying. Thus, it is based on counsellors’ perceptions/beliefs versus actual behaviour.

Also, it is not advisable to generalise these findings to other types of bullying

situations. Lastly, although the response rate of the present study was 49.74%, a

relatively high rate for such types of research, it still only reflects just under half of


the guidance counsellors in this province. Thus, non-responders may differ in

meaningful ways compared with study responders.

Demographics

The sample was primarily female (70.2%, n�66) with almost half of the sample

falling in the 41�50 year age range (45.7%, n�43). Participants reported a minimum

of two degrees (i.e. at least one Bachelor and one Master’s degree). Sixty-seven

percent (n�63) of participants were in a full-time guidance position, indicating that

most participants only had guidance duties in their respective schools (see Table 2).

Bullying programmes and Positive Behaviour Supports

The majority of participants reported that their schools have a bullying programme

(58.5%, n�55) and more than half of responding counsellors reported receiving

training in bullying (56.4%, n�53). More than three-quarters of participants

indicated training in PBS (76.6%, n�72) and 71.3% (n�67) indicated that their

school is currently implementing PBS (see Table 3).


In this study, guidance counsellors reported being least likely to ignore the incident

(mean�1.23, SD �.27) and more likely to discipline the bully (mean�4.29,

SD�.71) or enlist other adults (mean�4.10, SD�.56) (see Table 4). Hypotheses

1, 2 and 3 were evaluated through an examination of the composite mean scores.

Consistent with hypothesis 1, enlist other adults was a strategy endorsed by

counsellors in this study (i.e. mean scores fell in the ‘I probably would’ category).

Consistent with hypothesis 2, counsellors in the current study generally felt that toignore the incident was unacceptable (i.e. mean scores fell in the ‘I definitely would

not’ category). However, discipline the bully was not hypothesised as a strategy that

guidance counsellors would have endorsed (hypothesis 3), yet the mean score for this

composite fell in the ‘I probably would’ category.

Examining the composite mean scores also showed that guidance counsellors

endorsed work with the bully (mean�3.93, SD�.61) and work with the victim

(mean�3.35, SD�.87), with both mean scores falling above the neutral point

(consistent with hypothesis 1). This suggests that counsellors would endorse work

with the bully and work with the victim as strategies, but not as strongly as they would

endorse discipline the bully and/or enlist other adults.

Although the mean score for the work with the victim scale was above the neutral

point (mean�3.35), the standard deviation on this scale was the largest of all five

composites (SD�.87). Therefore, this scale shows the greatest variability in

counsellor responses. These results are consistent with Bauman et al.’s (2008) study

which also had the largest standard deviation on the work with the victim scale

(mean�3.33, SD�.83).Contrary to hypothesis 4, we used Spearman’s Rho and found a significant

correlation between sex and work with the victim, where female counsellors were

more likely than male counsellors to endorse work with the victim (.254, 5 .05, two-

tailed). Using Spearman’s Rho, we did not find a significant correlation between age

and responses on the five composite scales.


Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the sample.

Characteristic N % of sample

Sex

Male 20 21.3

Female 66 70.2

Missing 8 8.5

Age

Under 30 4 4.3

31�40 23 24.5

41�50 43 45.7

51�60 19 20.2

61� 0 0

Missing 5 5.3

Years of experience

0�5 26 27.7

6�10 14 14.9

11�15 13 13.8

16�20 20 21.3

21�25 7 7.4

26� 6 6.4

Missing 8 8.5

Percent of position*

Full-time guidance 63 67.0

Part-time guidance � other 21 22.3

Part-time guidance only 2 2.1

Missing 8 8.5

School location

Urban 28 29.8

Rural 52 55.3

Both 3 3.2

Missing 11 11.7

School type**

Primary/elementary 23 24.5

Middle school 13 13.8

High school 9 9.6

All grade 17 18.1

Multigrade 22 23.4

Missing 10 10.6

*Percent of position refers to the time allocated to guidance duties in the guidance position. Full timeguidance refers to a respondent with only guidance duties. Part time guidance � other refers to guidancecounsellors who spend a portion of their time in the guidance role but are also assigned other duties suchas teaching. Part time guidance only refers to those counsellors who are in a guidance role in a part timecapacity.**School types were categorised by the researchers. Primary/elementary schools were the followingconfigurations: K�6; K�4; and K�3. Middle schools were the following configurations: 7�9; 7�8; 5�9; and4�7. High schools included 10�12 and 9�12. All grade schools were K�12. Multigrade schools were: 8�12;7�12; K�7; K�8; and K�9. Multigrade was also used as a designation given to guidance counsellors whoindicated they were in more than one school at different levels. For example, one respondent indicatedworking in three schools (K�6, 7�12 and K�12).


Bullying programmes and training in bullying

The authors were also interested in examining whether the presence or absence of a

bullying programme or training in bullying had any relationship with the way

guidance counsellors would handle bullying. Tables 5�7 below examine these

relationships through Spearman’s Rho Correlations and one-way ANOVA’s, which

show no statistically significant findings and, therefore, do not support hypotheses 5or 6 which stated that the presence of a bullying programme, or training in bullying,

would be negatively related with the ignore the incident and discipline the bully scales

and positively related with the work with the bully, work with the victim and enlist

other adults scales.

Positive Behavioural Supports

The authors were also interested in examining PBS training and PBS implementa-

tion, and typical ways of handling bullying incidents. As seen in Table 8, and

Table 3. Responses to bullying programmes and PBS questionnaire items.

Questionnaire item N Percent

Does your school have a bullying program?

Yes 55 58.5

No 28 29.8

Missing 11 11.7

Have you received any formal training in bullying?

Yes 53 56.4

No 30 31.9

Missing 11 11.7

Have you had any training in Positive Behaviour Supports?

Yes 72 76.6

No 8 8.5

Not sure 3 3.2

Missing 11 11.7

Is your school currently implementing Positive Behaviour Supports?

Yes 67 71.3

No 8 8.5

Not sure 7 7.4

Missing 12 12.8

Table 4. Means and standard deviations of composites and correlations between composites.

Composite Mean (x̄) SD (s) N

Work with the bully 3.93 .61 73

Work with the victim 3.35 .87 73

Enlist other adults 4.10 .56 76

Ignore the incident 1.23 .27 73

Discipline the bully 4.29 .71 76

Note: Likert Scale ratings of 1 to 5 as: 1 � I definitely would not; 2 � I probably would not; 3 � I’munsure; 4 � I probably would; and 5 � I definitely would.


contrary to hypothesis 6, there were no statistically significant findings when PBS

training (i.e. yes versus no) was compared to the responses on each of the five

composite scales using one-way ANOVA.The authors then examined PBS implementation (i.e. yes, no, not sure) and the

five composite scales. Using a one-way ANOVA (see Table 9), there was a statistically

significant difference found between implementing PBS in schools and the discipline

the bully composite, F(2, 73)�8.346, p value�.001. Because of the significant F-

value, a post hoc analysis (i.e. Scheffe’s test) was used to identify where the

significance existed. According to the post hoc analysis, there was a statistically

significant difference between those who reported ‘yes’ to implementing PBS (mean:

4.437, SD: .592) and those ‘unsure’ of implementing PBS (mean: 3.476, SD: .604) on

the discipline the bully composite. The researchers opted to collapse the ‘unsure’ of

implementing PBS and the ‘not’ implementing PBS levels of the PBS variable. The

Table 5. Spearman’s Rho Correlations for bullying programme, training in bullying and five

composites.

Composite Work with bully Ignore Work with victim Enlist adults Discipline bully

Bully programme

Spearman’s �.087 �.006 �.045 �.065 �.031

Sig (2-tailed) .465 .957 .703 .577 .788

N 73 73 73 76 76

Training in bullying

Spearman’s �.126 .097 �.015 �.156 �.206

Sig (2-tailed) .290 .415 .900 .179 .074

N 73 73 73 76 76

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 6. ANOVA for bullying programme and five composites.

Composite df F Sig.

Work with bully 72 .481 .490

Ignore 72 .000 .988

Work with victim 72 .004 .948

Enlist adults 75 .410 .524

Discipline bully 75 .014 .906

Table 7. ANOVA for training in bullying and five composites.

Composite df F Sig.


Ignore 72 2.089 .153


Enlist adults 75 2.384 .127

Discipline bully 75 2.365 .128


rationale here was that if a participant was unsure if he/she was or was not

implementing PBS then it would be unlikely that the programme was being followed

all that stringently by the participant. Results of this ANOVA suggested a

statistically significant difference between the counsellors who indicated they were

implementing PBS in their school versus those who were not, or were unsure if they

were, implementing PBS on the discipline the bully composite, F(1, 74)�14.840,

p�.000 (see Table 10). Contrary to hypothesis 5, this suggested that guidance

counsellors who indicated they were implementing PBS in their schools were more

likely to report that they would discipline the bully when compared to guidance

counsellors who were not implementing PBS or were not sure if their school was

implementing PBS.

Discussion


Ignore the incident

In this study, counsellors were unlikely to ignore the incident when presented with this

verbal-relational incident of bullying, a finding consistent with Bauman et al.’s

(2008) study. The current authors note an absence of literature on student

perceptions regarding the availability of guidance counsellor bullying intervention.

However, there is research that suggests students perceive teachers as not intervening

sufficiently to stop bullying (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000). School counsel-

lors, because of their counsellor preparation, may perceive relational bullying more

seriously than their teacher colleagues (Jacobsen & Bauman, 2007). According to the

Guidelines for comprehensive school guidance programming, one of the goals of the

school guidance programme is to ‘promote preventative and developmental

programs on a school wide basis to such topics as violence prevention, bullying,

Table 8. ANOVA for PBS training and five composites.

Composite df F Sig.


Ignore 72 2.155 .124

Work with victim 72 1.338 .269

Enlist adults 75 .889 .416


Table 9. ANOVA for PBS implementation and five composites (using yes, no and not sure

groups).

Composite df F Sig.


Ignore 71 .765 .469


Enlist adults 74 1.942 .151



substance abuse, etc.’ (Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, 2010, p. 4). In

addition, Canadian codes of ethics (e.g. for teachers, counsellors and psychologists)

all highlight protection of client social welfare as ethical practice. Given the guidance

counsellor’s role in ethical school guidance programming, it is unlikely they would

ignore bullying.

Enlist other adults

Counsellors in this study were likely to enlist other adults. Enlist other adults is a

strategy endorsed in most bullying programmes, according to the Ontario Ministry

of Education, Registry of Bullying Prevention Programs (2010). Bullying research

emphasises the importance of parental involvement (Eslea & Smith, 2000),

administrative support (Plog, Epstein, Jens, & Porter, 2010), teacher involvement

(Craig et al., 2010), and counsellor involvement (Bauman, 2008; Pollack, 2006).

From a systemic perspective, the need for bullying awareness and behaviour change

extends beyond the student and involves peers, teachers, parents and the broader

community (Craig et al., 2010). It is widely accepted that bullying will not stop

without the intervention of adults (Craig, Pepler, & Blais, 2007; Craig et al., 2010 and

some bullying programmes are thought to be effective only because education of

school personnel and parents is a priority (Pollack, 2006).

Discipline the bully

Imposing sanctions for the bully is consistent and widely endorsed under Olweus’

anti-bullying programme (Olweus, 1993). The strong endorsement of the discipline

the bully scale by guidance counsellors in this province is consistent with Bauman

et al.’s (2008) results where a sample of 735 American counsellors and teachers also

supported imposing sanctions for the bully. In that study, Bauman et al. proposed

that to discipline the bully by punitive measures may be ‘justifiable in cases of high

severity bullying’ (p. 847) but the scenario presented in the HBQ was one of low

severity and suggested that ‘US teachers and counsellors appear less familiar with

non-punitive strategies’ (p. 847).

Importantly, because different kinds of interventions have claimed the same levels

of success, we do not know, for example, if punishing the bully is any better than

using counselling methods (Rigby, 2008). Discipline the bully was not hypothesised in

this study as a strategy that guidance counsellors would have endorsed, due to their

therapeutic role in schools. Given this therapeutic role, to discipline the bully may be

considered a dual role. The dual role of counsellor and disciplinarian is problematic

and best summarised by Remley and Herlihy (2005) who said: ‘It would be

unreasonable to expect students to trust and confide in a counselor who assigned

Table 10. ANOVA for PBS implementation and Discipline the bully scale (using yes and no

� not sure groups).

Composite df F Sig.



them to detention or reported their misbehavior to the principal’ (p. 206). The dual

role of guidance counsellors will be further discussed below.

Work with the bully/work with the victim

Guidance counsellors also endorsed work with the bully and work with the victim.

This suggests that counsellors would endorse work with the bully and work with the

victim as strategies but not as strongly as they would endorse discipline the bully andenlist other adults. These results are consistent with Bauman et al.’s (2008) findings.

In a recent study by Sherer and Nickerson (2010), school psychologists reported that

the most frequently used anti-bullying strategies in their schools related to working

with the bullies and victims.

In a study by Jacobsen and Bauman (2007) it was found that school counsellors

with anti-bullying training may perceive relational bullying as more serious and be

more likely to intervene in incidents of relational bullying than counsellors who did

not have anti-bullying training. In the current study, bullying training did notsignificantly impact on participants’ scores for the work with the bully and work with

the victim scales. It is likely that guidance counsellors in this province, because of

their formal education, would elect to work with the bully and victim, regardless of

having received anti-bullying training or not.

Interestingly, the sex of the guidance counsellor affected how they would respond

to the bullying scenario, with females more likely than males to endorse work with the

victim as a strategy. Implications for this finding may include the need for counsellor

education programmes to ensure that their graduates are comfortable working withvictims as an anti-bullying strategy, regardless of their sex or gender. As a workplace

implication, discussions at the school level may need to take place to ensure all

counsellors see the importance of working with the victim. These implications

provoke further curiosity and may be a place for future study.

Bullying programmes and guidance counsellor responses

In the current study, neither the presence of a school bullying programme or training

in addressing bullying was associated with how guidance counsellors responded to

bullying. These findings were in contrast to Bauman et al.’s (2008) study which found

that participants who indicated the presence of a specific anti-bullying programme or

had received anti-bullying training were less likely to ignore the incident.In the current study, there was low variability in scores on the ignore the incident

scale. Thus, almost all participants reported that they would not ignore the bullying

incident. This included those participants with and without school anti-bullying

programmes and personal anti-bullying training. It is possible that if the ignore the

incident scale had more variability in the current study it may have resulted in a more

consistent finding with the Bauman et al. (2008) study. Having said that, given that

almost half of school psychologists in one study considered anti-bullying policies

ineffective (Sherer & Nickerson, 2010), and the possibility that bullying interventionprogrammes influence attitudes and self-perceptions rather than anti-bullying

behaviour (Merrell et al., 2008), it is possible that guidance counsellors’ responses

to bullying situations are influenced by a complex array of factors, including the

possibility of school anti-bullying policies, programmes or training, along with other

factors. This is also in line with a systemic perspective on bullying.


Implications for counsellors and areas for future study

Because of the complex nature of bullying and the contribution of a vast array of

systemic factors, it is important for guidance counsellors to consider such factors

when handling bullying in schools. Guidance counsellors can have an impact on

many of these areas, such as peer influences, school climate and parenting. Some

guidance counsellors have skills and training in areas (e.g. conflict resolution, anger

management, parent skills, school-wide intervention) that can have an impact on

many of the factors that mitigate bullying.Guidance counsellors play a critical role in the prevention and resolution of

bullying in schools. Through the delivery of preventative programmes and conflict

resolution, guidance counsellors help students resolve conflicts and develop

respectful relationships. School guidance counsellors can teach lessons about the

types of bullying and how to ask adults for help if pupils are being bullied. Bullies

and victims can benefit from supportive counselling (Clarke & Kiselica, 1997) and

guidance counsellors can provide these services.

The research shows that the best outcomes from anti-bullying programmes tend

to be obtained in schools that have the strongest commitment to the programme and

typically have a staff member coordinating the programme under strong adminis-

trative support. As stated previously, one of the goals of the school guidance

programme is to promote preventative programmes on a school-wide basis on topics

such as violence prevention and bullying. Given the guidance counsellor’s role in the

support of the school guidance programme, bullying prevention and programming is

one of the many social and developmental areas where guidance counsellor expertise

is essential. In preparation for such roles, counsellor education should include

bullying prevention and intervention training.

Dual role

There is a long-standing literature on the dual roles counsellors may face in the

context of a school system (e.g. Law, 1978, 1979). By virtue of the work environment,

school counsellors may face ethical dilemmas because of the multiple roles they play

and the inherent conflicts in these roles (Remley & Herlihy, 2005).

In small schools, the student population does not warrant the appointment of a

full-time guidance counsellor, so it is common for guidance counsellors to have

teaching duties in these settings. Similarly, in rural settings, it may be difficult for

counsellors to avoid the dual role of counsellor/administrator. In the current study,

22% of participants indicated that they had teaching duties and 55% indicated that

they worked in a rural setting. As a teacher/counsellor or administrator/counsellor,

such professionals may have to act as disciplinarians (e.g. giving detentions) and

evaluators (e.g. giving grades on course work). Such responsibilities can create a

power differential between counsellor and client/student (Kitchener & Harding,

1990). Power differentials along with incompatible expectations and divergent

responsibilities are the factors used to determine the risk of harm in a dual

relationship (Kitchener & Harding, 1990). According to role theory, conflict occurs

when the expectations associated with one role require the person to act in a way that

is incompatible with the other role (Kitchener, 1988). It is not difficult to

comprehend the negative effect that a power differential or role conflict can have

on the establishment of a therapeutic relationship between counsellor and student.


Given the reality of small, rural schools in Newfoundland and Labrador and the

budgetary constraints they face, guidance counsellors will probably continue to find

themselves in such dual roles. Although such roles present significant ethical

challenges, they are a reality, and counsellors need to be prepared to ethically

practise within such dual roles. This realisation should begin during counsellor

education whereby counsellors should be taught not only to consider avoidance as a

strategy, but also how to ethically practise while in a dual role. Professional

counselling associations often provide ethical decision-making models to aid

counsellors who may be facing an ethical dilemma involving dual roles. In addition,

consultation with fellow colleagues is a highly useful strategy to get advice on how to

counteract role conflicts.

Given the strong endorsement of the discipline the bully scale, the implications for

counsellors in dual roles such as counsellor/teacher and counsellor/administrator is

worthy of future study.

Conclusions

The current study focused on how guidance counsellors would report handling a

specific incident of verbal-relational bullying. Participants were unlikely to ignore the

incident and most likely to enlist other adults and discipline the bully. The guidance

counsellor’s role in bullying prevention and programming, coupled with the ethical

guidelines they follow, make ignore the incident an unlikely strategy.

In the current study, the presence of a school bullying programme or prevention/

intervention training was not associated with how guidance counsellors responded to

bullying. These findings were in contrast to related research. Guidance counsellors’

responses to bullying situations are probably influenced by a complex array of

factors, including school policies, programmes and training, along with other

systemic factors. Thus, guidance counsellor training and supervision in the

prevention of, and intervention into, school bullying is important, but only part of

the solution for addressing this complex problem.

Guidance counsellors play a critical role in the prevention and remediation of

bullying in schools. Guidance counsellors, along with teachers and administrators,

have the potential to create a school climate conducive to safety.

Acknowledgements

The authors of this study would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Sheri Bauman forpermission to use the HBQ and her helpful guidance during this research.

Notes on contributors

Michleen Power-Elliott is a graduate student in the Counselling Psychology programme atMemorial University of Newfoundland. She has been teaching in the province since 2002. Shehas a keen interest in bullying intervention and prevention and has been actively involved inbullying prevention at various levels of the school system.

Greg Harris is an Associate Professor (Counselling Psychology) at Memorial University and aRegistered Psychologist in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.


References

Barboza, G.E., Schiamberg, L.B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S.J., Post, L.A., & Heraux, C.G.(2009). Individual characteristics and multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: Anecolological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101�121.

Bauman, S. (2008). The role of elementary school counselors in reducing school bullying.Elementary School Journal, 108(5), 362�375.

Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategiesfor handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 837�856.

Bonnet, M., Goossens, F.A., Nillemen, A.M., & Schuengel, C. (2009). Peer victimization inDutch schools of four- to five-year-olds: Contributing factors at a school level. ElementarySchool Journal, 110(2), 163�177.

Bradshaw, C.P., Sawyer, A.L., & O’Brennan, L.M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization atschool: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review,36(3), 361�382.

Burns, S., Cross, D., & Maycock, B. (2010). That could be me squishing chips on someone’scar.’ How friends can positively influences bullying behaviours. Journal of PrimaryPrevention, 31(4), 209�222.

Carbone-Lopez, K., Esbensen, F.A., & Brick, B.T. (2010). Correlates and consequences ofpeer victimization: Gender differences in direct and indirect forms of bullying. YouthViolence and Juvenile Justice, 8(4), 332�350.

Clarke, E.A., & Kiselica, M.S. (1997). A systematic counselling approach to the problem ofbullying. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31(4), 310�325.

Craig, W.M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J.G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes towardbullying and victimization. School Psychology International, 21(1), 5�21.

Craig, W.M., & Pepler, D.J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice.Canadian Psychology, 48(2), 86�93.

Craig, W., Pepler, D., & Blais, J. (2007). Responding to bullying: What works? SchoolPsychology International, 28(4), 465�477.

Craig, W.M., Pepler, D.J., Murphy, A., & McCuaig-Edge, H. (2010). What works in bullyingprevention. In E.M. Vernberg & B.K. Biggs (Eds.), Preventing and treating bullying andvictimization (pp. 215�241). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R.H., & Sugai, G. (2009). Overview and history of positivebehavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlop, G. Sugai & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook ofpositive behavior support (pp. 3�16). New York: Springer.

Eslea, M., & Smith, P.K. (2000). Pupil and parent attitudes toward bullying in primaryschools. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15(2), 207�219.

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Education. (2010). Guidelinesfor comprehensive school guidance programming. St John’s, NL: Author.

Hawkins, J., Herrenkohl, T., Farrington, D., Brewer, D., Catalano, R., . . . Cothern, L. (2000).Predictors of youth violence. In Juvenile Justice Bulletin (pp. 1�11). Washington, DC: USDepartment of Justice.

Hilton, J.M., Anngela-Cole, L., & Wakita, J. (2010). A cross-cultural comparison of factorsassociated with school bullying in Japan and the United States. Family Journal: Counselingand Therapy for Couples and Families, 18(4), 413�422.

Holden, R.R., Fekken, G.C., & Cotton, D.H. (1991). Assessing psychopathology usingstructured test-item response latencies. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Counseling &Clinical Psychology, 3(1), 111�118.

Jacobsen, K.E., & Bauman, S. (2007). Bullying in schools: School counselors’ responses tothree types of bullying incidents. Professional School Counseling, 11(1), 1�9.

Kitchener, K.S. (1988). Dual role relationships: What makes them so problematic? Journal ofCounseling and Development, 67(4), 217�221.

Kitchener, K.S., & Harding, S.S. (1990). Dual role relationships. In B.Herlihy & L.Golden(Eds.) Ethical standards casebook (4th ed., pp. 145�148). Alexandria, VA: AmericanAssociation for Counseling and Development.

Law, B. (1978). Counsellors as teachers. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6(1),59�74.

Law, B. (1979). The contexts of system orientation in secondary school counselling. BritishJournal of Guidance and Counselling, 7(2), 199�211.


Merrell, K.W., Isava, D.M., Gueldner, B.A., & Ross, S.W. (2008). How effective are schoolbullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychol-ogy Quarterly, 23(1), 26�42.

Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responsesto bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims and Offenders,1(3), 255�288.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.Olweus, D. (2010). Understanding and researching bullying: Some critical issues. In S.R.

Jimerson, S.M. Swearer & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: Aninternational perspective (pp. 9�33). New York: Routledge.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2010). Registry of bullying prevention programs. Retrievedfrom http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/bullyprevention/registry.html. Ontario: Queen’sPrinter for Ontario.

Pepler, D., Craig, W.M., & O’Connell, P. (1999). Understanding bullying from a dynamicsystems perspective. In A. Slater & D. Muir (Eds.), The Blackwell reader in developmentalpsychology (pp. 440�451). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Petit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children’s behavior problemsfrom infancy to four years. Developmental Psychology, 25(3), 413�420.

Plog, A., Epstein, L., Jens, K., & Porter, W. (2010). Sustainability of bullying intervention andprevention programs. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook ofbullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 559�569). New York: Routledge.

Pollock, S.L. (2006). Counselor roles in dealing with bullies and their LGBT victims. MiddleSchool Journal, 38(2), 29�36.

Remley Jr, T.P., & Herlihy, B. (2005). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (2nded). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Rigby, K. (2008). Children and bullying: How parents and educators can reduce bullying atschool. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Rigby, K., Smith, P.K., & Pepler, D. (2004). Working to prevent school bullying: Key issues. InP.K. Smith, D. Pepler & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful caninterventions be? (pp. 1�12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sherer, Y.C., & Nickerson, A.B. (2010). Anti-bullying practices in American schools:Perspectives of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 47(3), 217�229.

Simonsen, B., & Sugai, G. (2009). School-wide positive behavior support: A systems-levelapplication of behavioural principles. In A. Akin-Little, S.G. Little, M.A. Bray & T.J. Kehle(Eds.), Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies (pp. 125�140).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R.H. (2008). What we know and need to know about preventing problembehavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16(2), 67�77.

Twemlow, S.W., & Sacco, F.C. (2008). Why school antibullying programs don’t work. Lanham,MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Whitney, I., & Smith, P.K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research, 35(1), 3�25.


http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teachers/bullyprevention/registry.html

Copyright of British Journal of Guidance & Counselling is the property of Routledge and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.