1

Chapter 11

Apply ing EQUIP for Educators in Secondary Education

Kevin van der Meulen & Crist ina del Barrio

Autonomous Universit y of Madrid, Spain

2

Introduction

Educators do not only promote the academic or intel lectual

development of children and adolescents, but also their personal and

social development , ei ther in daily interact ion wi th them as in

curricular format . In school set t ings, these professionals –e .g. teachers,

educational psychologists , school counselors - might look for tools in

order to succeed in those paths of education. Nowadays, they are able

to choose among a large and diverse amount of implements, which

reach from social skil l s teaching, that m ight be carr ied out by a

professional who is invited by the school in a specif ic t ime period, to

extensive whole school approaches, aimed at both the individuals in

the school as the inst i tut ion i t se lf . During the last decades, in many

countries in America , Europe, Asia and Oceania there has been an

increasing awareness of peer relat ions problems that exist in schools,

as for example bul lying and social exclusion. This has led to the

development of a wide range of intervention programs, including peer

support systems (see for example del Barrio e t al . , 2011; Cowie &

3

Wallace, 2000; Toda, 2005; see e .g. Smith, Pepler & Rigby, 2004;

Sul livan, Cleary & Sull ivan, 2004 for overviews on a wider range of

school bullying intervent ions ) .

In this chapter , we will focus on the EQUIP program for

Educators (DiBiase , Gibbs, Potter & Spring, 2005), a program that can

be used by professionals to work wi th students in schools. Fi rst we wi ll

outl ine i t s goals, s tructure and use . We then wi ll refer to our Spanish

version of the program (DiBiase , Gibbs, Potter , van der Meulen,

Granizo & del Barr io, 2010), the adjustments we made to the program

contents and our ideas on it s applicat ion in schools. Secondly, we will

concentrate on how EQUIP for Educators (EFE) might be useful to

promote posit ive peer rela tions in the classroom. In that sense , i t could

have i t s effec ts on preventing peer vict imization taking place between

students, e ither in overt interact ions or a iming at the exclusion of

interaction of a peer student . Thirdly, af ter referr ing to ear lier

conducted studies on the effectiveness of EFE that were carried out in

Canada (DiBiase , 2010) and the Netherlands (Van der Velden, Brugman,

4

Boom & Koops, 2010), we wi ll explain about our experiences with the

program in Spanish Secondary Education, and the resul ts we’ve

obta ined so far. Final ly, this wil l br ing us to some observat ions on the

use and evaluation of EFE and re lated suggestions for the future .

1. EQUIP for Educators. Goals, structure and use o f the program

with adolescents in secondary school

EQUIP for Educators i s an adapted version of the or iginal

EQUIP , a trea tment program for juvenile offenders teaching them to

think and act responsibly using a peer -helping approach (Gibbs, Pot ter

& Goldstein, 1995). The educational version is not intended for

treatment of young people , but ra ther to prevent them from future ant i -

social behavior . According to McGinnis (2003; c ited en DiBiase et al . ,

2005), although a smal l par t of a student populat ion in a school might

al ready be showing at -r isk behavior (15% moderate; 5% more intense

and chronic) , and wil l therefore need secondary or tertiary prevent ion,

most students (80%) need primary, universal prevention as they might

5

only be showing externalizing probl ems occasional ly. At -r isk behavior

should not only be understood as di rect ant i -socia l behavior , as for

example di rect physica l aggression towards others. Less obvious,

indirect hurt ful behavior towards others, as for example indirect socia l

exclusion ( ignoring) i s a lso a t ype of mal treatment (Del Barrio, Martín,

Almeida & Barr ios, 2003), and should therefore be considered as at -

risk behavior and be included in prevent ion program s for young

students. In both cases, the behavior can be conceptualized as harming

others through the viola tion of important moral or socia l norms

(Barr iga , Morrison, Liau & Gibbs, 2001). EQUIP for Educators i s

dedicated to both primary and secondary preve ntion in an educat ional

context and aims at remedia ting developmental delays in moral

judgment, sel f -serving cognit ive distor tions and deficiencies in social

ski ll s . It i s a psycho educational program, which refers to the teaching

and t ra ining of ski ll s , k nowledge, and mature awareness required for

competent daily l iving (DiBiase et al . , 2005) . EFE consists of about 35

sessions, to be appl ied in a group of students and involves three

components : 1) anger management and sel f -serving cogni tive

6

distor tions cor rection, 2) social skill s for balanced and const ructive

social behavior , and 3) socia l decision making, implying mature moral

judgment. Students who are in need of a psycho educational t raining

have a posit ive potent ial , however , they have certain l imi tat i ons or

problems that can keep them from put thei r potent ial in practice . EFE

aims a t working on these problems among at -r isk students, which have

been cal led “the three D’s”: developmental delays in moral judgment,

se l f -serving cognit ion distort ions and so cial skil l s def ic iencies which

are interrelated (DiBiase e t al . , 2005) . So, the aim of the program is

explained here as remedying these delays, distort ions and defic iencies

that can be found in a t -r isk students. However , i t should be taken into

account that EFE is a lso aimed at enti re populations, thus as primary

prevent ion (Inst itute of Medicine , 1994).Therefore , in this case , i t

should be defined wi th the appropriate terminology, such as teaching

and helping adolescents to develop and increase thei r skil l s and

knowledge (Van der Meulen, del Barrio & d e Dios, in prep.) . In

ordinary secondary education, i t could be expected that part of the

student populat ion does not show at -r isk behavior , cognitions or

7

emotions. However , the program also a ims a t equipping them, in order

to prevent them from showing this negat ive or ri sk ful l behavior ,

fee lings and thinking for themselves and others in the future. No

remedying needs to take place , but an education has to be offered for a

healthy and posi tive development . On the other hand, the use of

posit ive terms seems important in order to emphasize the program’s

possibi li t ies to reach and take advantage of the adolescent’s potential ,

while he or she is developing him or hersel f.

A descr iption of the three components show s us the contents of

EQUIP for Educators , s tart ing wi th anger management and correcting

se lf -serving cognitive distortions (a lso named ‘ thinking errors’), both

composing the fi rst component . Techniques for teaching anger

management have been developed and described extensively by

Goldstein, for example in his book The Prepare Curriculum (Goldstein,

1999) and are an important part of Aggression Replacement Training

(ART, Goldste in, Gl ick & Gibbs, 1998), on which EFE is based

part ial l y. It i s concerned with severa l i ssues. For example, evaluating

8

and relabeling aggression impl ies recognizing it s advantages and

disadvantages and becoming aware of the immaturi ty and se l f -

centeredness of i t , and the damaging effect i t has on a person. Oth er

aspects are the understanding of the anatomy of anger, which shows

students how self -talk is a source of anger; how to recognize early

warning signs of anger in your body and what techniques to use to

control i t (e.g. s low deep breathing, invoking pleas ant or peaceful

imagery) and to think ahead to consequences (for yourse l f, a t short and

long term; for others, fi rst and la ter) . Correct ing se lf -serving cogni t ive

distortions, included in the same component , implies fi rst of al l

learning to recognize , and then how to correct four main thinking

errors, as identi fied by Gibbs (e .g., 2003) . The Self -Centered thinking

error refers to thinking that one’s own opinions, needs, rights, fee lings

are more important than those of others, and that want ing and get ting

your way in the present (“now”) is more important than it s

consequences in the future . Minimizing or Mislabeling means thinking

that your behavior or problems are not as wrong or harmful as they are ,

or using labels which are belit t l ing or dehumanizing in r e lat ion to

9

others (Gibbs, Pot ter & Goldstein, 1995). When you misatt ribute blame

for one’s own actions to outside sources, you are Blaming others

(Gibbs et a l . , 1995). Someone is Assuming the worst when he or she

considers a socia l s itua tion as inevi table or supposes that there are no

possibi li t ies to improve his/her behavior, or when he/she at tr ibutes

hosti le intentions to other people (Gibbs, Pot ter , Barriga & Liau, 1996).

According to Gibbs (2003) sel f -centeredness i s a pr imary thinking

error , while the remaining three are secondary thinking errors, a r ising

from an egocentric att i tude . These secondary cogni tive distor tions are

re lated to a person’s intent ion to reduce st ress from the effects of the

primary thinking errors; these are ra tional iza tions aimin g at

neutra lizing feelings of guil t .

The thinking errors need to become part of the vocabulary used

in the classroom during the sessions, so they can be used throughout

the program when doing exercises, but a lso when observing the

behavior of the ir classma tes and teacher(s) in daily school l i fe . Severa l

practices are a imed a t raising consciousness on cognit ive distortions or

10

se l f -centered att i tudes implying the exercise of social perspective

taking, as for example reversing viewpoints, writ ing a story from two

points of view, and analyzing a situa tion of vict imization and i t s

consequences at the short and long term.

The second component concerns the teaching of social ski l l s ,

meaning the dealing with di ff icul t interpersonal situa tions with

balanced and const ructive behaviors (DiBiase et a l . , 2005). These

ski ll s are taught in four phases : model ing the ski ll , a ttempting to

perform the skil l , discussing the ski ll – receiving feedback on the

performance and thereby improving it , and further pract icing of the

ski ll in diverse si tuat ions, in order to ref ine and consol idate in into a

genera lized habit . With this method, students learn for example to

express a complaint constructivel y ( think ahead about what to say,

make a const ruct ive suggestion etc. ) , to care for someone who is sad or

upset (pay at tent ion to the signs a person shows, l i sten without

interrupt ing) , to deal const ructively wi th negative peer pressure ( to

think about the consequences in advance, think of the reasons to give ,

11

make suggestions to do instead), to prepare for a st ressful conversat ion

(think ahead what to say and how the other person might reply) or to

deal const ruct ively wi th someone accusing you of something (calm

yourse l f down, think i f the accuser i s r ight, talk in a calm,

straightforward way).

Finally, the third component , social decision making , a ims at

promoting students in their development of moral judgment : to equip

them with mature moral judgment . Maturi t y in moral judgment i s

understood as in the di rect ion of development descr ibed by Piaget and

Kohlberg. Gibbs (2003) adapted Kohlberg’s model of moral

development in reasoning and descr ibes four stages; his model works

as the theoret ica l f rame of refer ence for the EQUIP programs. Stages 1

and 2 imply immature morali t ies, whi le a t s tages 3 and 4, people

reason in terms of mutual caring, respect and t rust , either on the scale

of interpersonal relat ionships or social systems, thus demonstra ting

mature moral it y. In the social decision making sessions, s tudents are

provided wi th a short story il lust rating a problem situation, and a l i s t

12

of re la ted questions: answering impl ies making a decision on what to

do in that particular si tuat ion. For example , in Alfon so’s problem

situat ion, Doug, a f r iend of Alfonso, asks him to show him his answers

during a math test , while the teacher i s outside the classroom for a few

minutes. Should Alfonso let Doug copy his answers? In each of the

stories, one or more key values c an be identi f ied. In Alfonso’s problem

situat ion this i s honesty, other key values are for example respect for

property, quali t y of l i fe or re la tionship and respect .

It i s important for the teachers to become famil iar with the

session procedures and teachi ng techniques as described in the program

book (DiBiase et al . , 2005) . During the sessions, the teacher somet imes

wi ll work with the whole group (which might consist of 20 -30

students) , but he/she wi ll a lso need to break i t down into smaller

groups, for example working tr iads, or let the students work

individually. Some of the act ivit ies can be done ora lly; other par ts

need to be completed on paper . Role playing act ivit ies, especia lly in

the working tr iads, are very frequent during the sessions. Educators

13

also need to get familiar ized wi th two part icular teaching techniques:

the sandwich style of const ruct ive cri t ic ism – a cri t ical comment needs

to be preceded and fol lowed by support ive ones –; and the “ask, don’t

tel l” technique, as characterized by Lickona (1983; c ited in DiBiase e t

al . , 2005). A teacher might want to te ll the students what would be

appropriate to do in a problem situation, or tel l a dawdling group they

need to pay at tent ion and complain about thei r behavior; instead he/she

should ask the group about i t so they become aware of one or another

situat ion and give their own suggestions.

The Spanish version of the program, which was cal led

“EQUIPAR para Educadores” (DiBiase , Gibbs, Pot ter , van der Meulen,

Granizo & del Barr io, 2010) i s different f rom the or iginal version in

re lat ion to the examples and problem situations that are used in the

components of socia l skil l s and socia l decision making. On the one

hand, we (the last three authors) int roduced additional situa tions for

the practice of each of the social ski ll s , which we considered as easi ly

recognizable for Spanish adolescents. On the other hand, f rom the

14

13problem situations that make up the ten socia l decision making

sessions in the original program, six problem si tuat ions were taken out :

two si tuat ions on stealing, one on drug -dealing in town, one on an

escape from an insti tution for boys, another keeping a gun in school

and one on a father’s drinking problem. These were considered to be

very di fferent f rom adolescent’s daily l ife experien ces in Spain (e.g.

possession of weapons is very rare in Spain; teenagers under 18 are

unable to have a driver’s l icense) . We int roduced four new problem

situat ions, which were all re la ted to the school se tt ing: two of them are

situat ions of peer vict imiza tion in the c lass, one is on drug -deal ing in

school and one implies a student - teacher problem. For example , one of

the problems re la ted to peer vict imization concerns the si tuat ion of

Juan, who is observing his c lassmate Miguel being bull ied by others,

some of them who have been friends of Juan for a long t ime. Juan

would like to stop this situa tion, but he doesn’t want to lose his

fr iendships ei ther.

15

For each of the three components ten sessions are required.

However , before starting the curr iculum as pro grammed in the tota l of

31 sessions ( including also one final review session) , DiBiase et al .

(2005) suggest to teach the thinking error vocabulary to the students,

and in a special advance class to go through the “ground rules” that are

needed to guide st udents’ interact ions during the programs’ activi ties

as e.g in discussions. Two of our t ra iners, Otegui and Pozo, decided to

rename these rules as “working agreements” , as the term sounds less

di rective , and they proposed a method for the establishment of the

agreements, which we used in the classrooms that par ticipated.

Students themselves should come up with agreements and these should

be stated in posit ive phrases. Finally, an ini tial session 1 to introduce

the program as for example proposed by Jan van Westerlaak (pers.

comm. Apri l 7th 2006) i s a lso desirable , in which the following

quest ions should be answered: “What does “equip” mean, and what

does a person need to be equipped? If you think of equipment , le t ’s

1 T he in it ia l sess io n can a lso be co mbined wit h t he e la bor at io n o f wor k ing

agr ee ment s.

16

imagine you have this backpack. What do you put i t when you’re going

on a tr ip? And what i f this t rip’s called l i fe?” In sum, this means that

about four ext ra sessions need to be added to the or iginal total of 31

sessions. Apart f rom this, content was added to the sessions in which

the before mentioned peer vict imizat ion problem si tuat ions were

discussed, an act ivity implying a discussion on prefixed aspects of the

phenomenon of bul lying and socia l exclusion in schools (i t’s

defini tion, types of vict imization occurring in the classroom,

intervention by c lassmates, etc) . 2

According to DiBiase et al . (2005) EFE is aimed at chi ldren,

preadolescents and adolescents in grades five through eight . However,

bearing in mind the issues that are being t rea ted in the or iginal

program, for the Spanish school con text , we considered that using the

program with chi ldren and preadolescents before the age of 13 years

would not be appropriate (DiBiase e t al . , 2010; Van der Meulen et a l . ,

in prep .) . On the one hand, because of the contents (e .g. problem

2 Met ho ds o f t hese add it io na l sess io ns do no t appear in t he Span is h ve r s io n

EQUI P fo r E ducato r s ( D iB ia se et a l. , 2010) .

17

situat ions) whic h they might not be famil iar wi th in thei r da ily l ives,

so they could make other interpre tations of i t (i t could also scare them

or thei r parents) . On the other hand, because of the cognitive

capacities required for a ser ious ref lec tion on various e lements of the

program, e .g. making moral judgments in problem situations, learning

social ski ll s as how to cope with group pressure, and others.

2. Using EQUIP for Educators to promote posi t ive peer relations in

the c lassroom

The growing awareness and concern about peer relat ion problems

in schools and the negat ive effec ts these can produce in students at

short and long term (e .g. Nishina , Juvonen & Witkow, 2005; Schäfer e t

al . , 2004; Matsui , Tsuzuki , Kakuyama & Ongla tco, 1996 ) urges the use

of intervent ion methods and educational programs . We perceived

EQUIP for Educators as a compell ing program, which could not only

be used to prevent adolescents f rom developing a t r i sk levels of

distor tional thinking, but a lso to create a pos i tive c lassroom cl imate

18

and, in this respect, to diminish peer bul lying and socia l exclusion. In

the re la tively shor t history of the study on peer vic timization in

schools, a change towards an understanding of this phenomenon as a

negative peer relat ion wi thin a group context , has become more evident

among researchers (e.g. del Barr io, van der Meulen, Barr ios, 2002;

Bukowski & Sippola, 2001; Salmivalli , 2010; Salmival li e t al . , 1996),

which actually means that they acknowledge that the dynamics and

moral atmosphere in the group contribute to the incidence of peer

victimizat ion, and that the phenomenon has to be understood on a

group level, i .e . implying severa l roles as bul ly, vic tim, bystanders,

helpers etc , but also as a f rame in which for example people’s label ing

as insider, outsider , popular etc . can be understood. Part of the

secondary school students, especially the older ones, identi fy a

bullying or social exclusion situat ion in this way and refer to group

processes in thei r causal explanations (Del B arr io e t al . , in prep.; Van

der Meulen, 2003).

19

The moral atmosphere or cul ture in a group (e .g. c lassroom) or

insti tution (e .g. school) has an impact on the behavior tha t students

display in that context. Moral culture refers to the norms, values and

meaning systems which regulate social interactions in moral si tuat ions,

as shared by i t s members (Power, Higgins & Kohlberg, 1989). The

re lat ion between the perception of the moral atmosphere in a school

and norm t ransgressive or pro - socia l behavior has even been found to

be st ronger than between moral competence and these kinds of

behavior (Høst , Brugman, Tavecchio & Beem, 1998; Brugman et a l . ,

2003). Similarly, Salmivall i and Voeten (2004) found that a t the class

level , group norms are related to students’ behavior in bul lying

situat ions (e .g. bul lying others, assisting the bully, reinforc ing the

bully, defending the victim, or staying outside bullying situations) .

Thus we could state that , for a student in deciding what to do, i t i s

important to think how t he others in the group would think about i t .

Bystanders, for example , might want to intervene to stop the bullying,

but be scared to do so because he/she would violate the norms of the

group. In our opinion, i t i s important to ra ise conscience on ongoing

20

group processes in the c lassroom, and EFE could be used for that , as

the group behavior’s i s be ing discussed during the program sessions

(Van der Meulen, Granizo & del Barrio, 2010; Van der Meulen et a l . ,

in prep.) . In the analysis of real and hypothet ica l confl ic t s i tua tions as

for example Juan and Miguel’s victimizat ion si tuat ion, students

themselves talk about i ssues as part icipant roles, behavior , pressure ,

etc .

EQUIP for Educators i s sa id to focus on the prepara tion of a

receptive interpersonal social c limate in the classroom, in order to

teach and encourage students to think and act responsibly (DiBiase e t

al . , 2005). Nevertheless, i t i s important to take into account that the

individual’s progress in adequate menta l processes i s not the only goal.

As we have argued, a posi tive social c lass c limate should be aimed at

by i t sel f for i t s influence on the individuals’ behavior in that context .

Methodological ly, both aims coincide , as i t i s through the

contribut ions of the group that the individual makes pro gress, and

posit ive group processes add to a posit ive cl imate .

21

On the other hand, positive peer rela tions in the classroom might

be a t r i sk because of sel f -serving cognit ive distort ions or low moral

motivation in students, and ant i -social behavior inc luding bullying and

excluding behaviors in the c lassroom might appea r and a lso remain

present in the group. Gasser & Ke ller (2009) proposed that children

who bul ly others might be wel l aware of moral rules but lack moral

motivation. An important element of moral mot ivat ion is the tendency

to interpre t a moral t ransgression in moral terms. So bul lies might

perceive a bullying behavior as non -moral but for example as a

convent ional standard in thei r peer group. On the other hand, Gini

(2006), using Bandura’s theoret ical model on the const ruct of moral

disengagement (e .g. Band ura , 2002), found that children who

part icipate in victimizing situations, ei ther as bul lies, assistants of the

bull ies or re inforcers, a re more ready to show moral disengagement

mechanisms, for example minimizing the effec ts’ of the bullying

behavior or displacing responsibil i t y. In one of our qual ita tive studies

(Del Barrio e t al . , in prep) on the understanding of peer vict imization

in schools wi th the narra tive instrument SCAN -Bullying (Del Barrio,

22

Almeida et a l . , 2003) , cogni tive distor tions were found in children’s

and adolescents’ causal explanations of the phenomenon. For example,

a boy (13) i s referring to the thinking error of minimization when he

explains “I think he does i t just in order to pretend being funny. Not to

hurt anybody, but to let the others know how funny he is” (Van der

Meulen et a l . , 2010). As a consequence, we suggest that interpre ting

bullying si tuat ions in the right terminology, i .e . moral terms and

correcting sel f -serving cogni tive distor tions or moral disengagement

mechanisms might contr ibute to a reduct ion and prevention of

victimizat ion between peers.

3. Appl ication of EQUIP for Educators and results: empirical

studies and quali tat ive data

So far , the prevent ion version of the EQUIP program has been

empirical ly tested in three different countries : Canada, the Netherlands

and Spain. DiBiase (2010) investigated the effec ts of the program as a

form of secondary prevent ion in Canada, in a selected group of

23

students who were a t r i sk for external izing behavior problems. DiBiase

found that these students, a fter receiving the EQUIP program, had

gained both posi tive socia l and moral judgment skill s . However , no

changes were observed in relation to their anger management skil l s.

Both in Spain and the Netherlands, applicat ions of the EQUIP for

Educators program as a t ype of pr imary prevention were invest igated.

In the Netherlands, Van der Velden, Brugman, Boom & Koops (2010)

studied the effec tiveness of EFE in ordinary secondary schools

containing a high proportion of students who could be labeled as at

ri sk for ant isocial behavior. Their f indings showed that the students

going through the program reported a more negat ive at t i tude towards

antisocial behavior and a lower level of sel f -serving cogni tive

distor tions af ter i t s completion, in com parison to the students in the

control group. The effect on sel f -serving cogni tive distor tions was

found to remain stable over a period of 9 months. Van der Velden et a l .

also interviewed teachers who worked with the program in the schools,

and of those who were questioned, 85% certi fied the program as being

24

successful in positive ly inf luencing thinking and acting of students.

However , with respect to the prevalence of ant isocial behavior and

moral judgment , no di fferences in change were found between the

experimental and control groups.

In Spain, the EFE program was appl ied in classrooms with

students between the ages of 13 and 17 years of age in Spanish

ordinary secondary education schools (3 r d and 4 t h schoolyear in the

Spanish education system) (Van der Meulen et a l . , in prep .) . The

trainers were both master students in psychology and researchers who

received an extensive t ra ining by a professional Equip t ra iner f rom the

Netherlands . We gathered periodical ly to comment on the progress of

the program implementa tion. Two methodological aspects were

considered to be essential for a successful implementation of the

program. In the f irst place , we emphasized the need for a rea l ac tive

part icipation by a ll students, and in the second place , offering many

opportunit ies of experiencing rea l istic problem situations albeit

hypothetical (by means of role playing) . Moreover , when real problems

25

in the class or school would occur , then these should be analyzed

wi thin the frame of the program, thereby making a connect ion between

the components of the program and real l i fe problem si tuat ions.

We star ted working with the program in two different sta te

secondary schools in the Madrid area . A pilot study was conduct ed

wi th two experimental and two control c lassrooms, and quanti ta tive

resul ts showed a signif icant decrease of se lf -serving cognit ive

distor tions in one of the two groups in which EFE was applied (Van

der Meulen e t al . , 2010) . One of the reasons for this f inding might be

the di fference in support obtained from the school for the applicat ion

of the program. It i s important tha t students perceive that the adults in

the school (teachers, counselors, e tc .) find EFE a posi tive contribution

to thei r educat ion. In terms of classroom cl imate , students receiving

the training did not report to feel be tter and more secure in the

classroom afterwards. However , s tudents of the group that reduced

thei r thinking errors perceived their c lass as less united than before the

intervention. We expla ined this finding not as an impairment of the

26

class’ moral climate producing less pro -social and more anti -socia l

behavior , but as a higher level of students’ individuation processes

necessary for thei r development , which might be cau sed by a higher

awareness of the exist ing di fferences between them (Blasi & Glodis,

1995).

After the pi lot study, a second study was init ia ted ( Van der

Meulen, Granizo, Rodriguez & Juanes, 2009; Van der Meulen et al . , in

prep.) wi th students of e ight clas srooms of three state secondary

schools who went through the program, and five control groups. In

re lat ion to se lf -serving cognit ive distor tions, only in one of the eight

experimental groups a significant decrease of thinking errors was

found, whi le no changes were observed in the remaining groups. On the

other hand, a lso in one control group a signif icant decrease was found,

whi le a second group increased thei r level of distortions in the period

between pre and post -testing, al though the last change was no t

stat i st ica lly significant . However, i t needs to be taken into account that

levels of cogni tive distor tions were low in a ll part icipating classrooms.

27

A comparison of HIT profi les (Barr iga , Gibbs, Pot ter & Liau, 2001)

showed that 78% of the students in the experimenta l groups and 89% of

those in the control groups should be labeled as “normal” , contrary to

“borderline” or “c linica l” at pretest . It could be that changes should be

expected more among youngsters showing at ri sk levels of se lf -serving

cognit ive distort ions.

A f i rst analysis on part of our data (5 experimental and 4 control

groups) in re lat ion to peer vic timizat ion showed minor changes in

bullying and socia l exclusion incidence (Van der Meulen e t al . , 2009) .

However , vic timization rates at both p re- and posttest were ra ther low

in the part ic ipat ing c lassrooms, which corresponds to the decreasing

incidence in those school years and ages in comparison to the

(pre)adolescents in the fi rst two years of secondary educat ion, as

reported in the Spanish n at ional survey (Del Barrio e t al . , 2008) and

those of other countries (e .g. Olweus, 1993; Whitney & Smith, 1993).

In re la tion to students’ behavior when observing vic timization

situat ions in thei r classroom, we checked the proport ions of students in

28

each classroom who indicated thei r own reactions to bul lying si tuat ions

according to the possibi li t ies they had to consider (e .g. “ I join the

bully”; “I ta lk to the vict im”) a t pre - and post -test . Variations of 10%

or more in these proportions, showing bot h increases and decreases

were found equal ly in the experimental and control groups. However ,

most of students’ percept ions of the ir classmates’ react ions a ltered in

all experimental groups between measuring moments, but very few in

the control groups ( imp l ying a lterations ≥10%). The proport ion of

students who perceived other peers as for example “reject ing the

bull ies”, “doing nothing but declaring la ter they should do something”

or “t rying to stop i t” had increased in some experimenta l classes, or

decreased in others, while proport ions stayed mostly the same in the

control groups. These resul ts might show an increased awareness of

those who received the EFE training on how their classmates react to

peer bullying.

In semi-st ructured interviews we checked s tudents’ opinions

about the program’s working methods and the effect iveness of the

29

program . Students evaluated EFE’s methodology posi tive ly. They

described working in a group format as satisfactory, so they share thei r

opinions “because each of us thinks d if ferently, we don’t a ll think the

same. I think i t i s because in other classes they don’t give us that

opportunity” (boy, 16). Also the role -playing act ivit ies received

appraisal , as for example expressed by these two gi r ls , both aged 17

years : “That theatre doing thing (…) That helps a lot . –With what

does i t he lp? To express mysel f be tter (…) to open up” ; “You read this

and you put yourself in the role and you think about i t . –You put

yourse l f in that si tuat ion? Of course!” .

Par tic ipants a lso referred to results they obta ined from the EFE,

sometimes mentioning a session that taught them a speci fic content or

technique, as for example this gi rl (16) in re la tion to a socia l skill

session: “When we had this c lass on how to help a f riend who feels bad,

I used to give advice, and now I learnt I shouldn’t do that (…) I used

to t ry and help them, and no, i t ’s l ike t rying to le t them pour their

heart out without you part icipat ing, you just need to l i sten to them .”

30

Others refer to anger management : “Not to get angry so many t imes

(…) I control myself many t imes” –How? Thinking of the consequences.”

(boy, 16). “Maybe I get angry at somebody, and think before I start

talking in case afterwards I would regret i t and I think more about

what I do and al l” (gi rl , 13) . St il l others refer expl ic it ly to arguments

they have wi th thei r parents and what they do: “I think a lot about the

thinking errors and how I can control myself” (gi rl , 15) or the boy (16)

who ment ions he just doesn’t “get angry that of ten any more wi th his

parents” .

4. Criticisms and future directions

From our perspective , EQUIP for Educators i s a promising

program aiming a t both individuals and groups well functioning.

Nevertheless, several aspects re la ted to i t s applicat ion and the

evaluat ion of i t s effec tiveness could be cri t ic ized. To conclude our

chapter , we’ll review some of these; i t would be useful to reconsider

these for future implantat ion of the program.

31

First of al l , in re la tion to measuring EFE’s effec tiveness, i t

should be taken into account that when the program is intended as a

type of primary intervention, addi tional methods of evaluation migh t

need to be used (Van der Meulen et al . , in prep). For example , instead

of measuring levels of cognitive distor tions of the individuals, students’

knowledge on how to recognize thinking errors and to correct them

could be studied. Likewise , i t would be interest ing to find out i f , and

how often students do recognize and correct thinking errors of other

peers in the classroom. On the other hand, the reduction of negative

behavior , as for example the decrease of anger expressions in confl icts

wi th peers or parents, which the students indicate as a posit ive effec t

of the program, could be studied by means of diaries or other types of

qual ita tive studies, in order to know which mechanisms are used to

control anger and how often, what the nature is of these confl icts etc.

Furthermore , effec ts on the moral atmosphere in the c lassroom should

be investigated.

32

In addi tion, the developmental tra jec tory of the student’s menta l

processes and the impact of the int ervention should be explored over a

longer per iod of t ime, i .e . there i s a need for longitudinal

investigations. For example , a “sleeper” effec t might be occurr ing, so

that the effects of the training wil l become visible after a longer per iod

of t ime. This was suggested by Leeman, Gibbs & Ful ler (1993)

studying the impact of the t rea tment program EQ UIP in juvenile

offenders, who did not find changes in moral judgment immediately

af ter the intervention, and neither by Van der Velden et a l . (2010) in

re lat ion to secondary school students.

In re la tion to this, i t a lso seems recommendable to use an

extended time period to work through the program. A 10 -week

curriculum might seem something more compact and manageable for

teachers, but in pract ice , a ll aspects whi ch students should learn need

time to real ly be assimila ted by them. Al though DiBiase e t al . (2005)

suggest to extend the course by addi tional sessions i f that seems

necessary, i t might not be the lack of sessions, as much as a t ime to

33

have experiences tha t make one become aware of the program’s

elements, e .g. when reflecting on the way in which he or she

communicated wi th somebody in a conflict si tuat ion, and the

consequences this had over a longer period of t ime.

Al though various e lements of EFE (e .g. thi nking error correct ion,

handling group pressure) seem promising for the prevention of peer

victimizat ion, the program as i t i s now, in our opinion i t does not seem

to be appropria te for students below the age of 13/14 years.

Possibili t ies should be explore d on how to adjust EFE to younger

students, experiencing bul lying to a larger extent , or how to

incorporate these e lements in a more specif ic bullying intervent ion

program.

The extent to what EFE is implemented as original ly intended

might affect i t s effec tiveness (Brugman & Gibbs, 2010). Helmond,

Brugman & Overbeek (2010; c ited in Brugman & Gibbs, 2010) speci fy

five indicators of program integrity that can be applied to the EQUIP

program: 1) exposure (number, dura tion and frequency of implemented

34

meetings) , 2) adherence (degree in which the program components are

executed as intended) , 3) qual it y of delivery (use of techniques,

processes or methods as prescribed) , 4) part ic ipant responsiveness and

5) program differentia tion, which refers to the identi ficat i on of

essential program characteristics tha t are needed for effect iveness.

Among EFE’s character ist ics are : a mixed peer group including

posit ive role -models, and sufficient int ruding confrontat ions with

one’s own problems. As we have mentioned before , we think i t i s

highly important to analyze real problem situations with the students,

so they connect what they’ve learned in the program with thei r dai ly

l ives. So, this would benefit the program’s integri ty in relat ion to

program different ia tion - students are confronted wi th thei r own

problems. However , i t might affec t the aspect of exposure negatively,

as the analysis of such a problem with the group might interrupt the

session that was planned for that day (and incorporating an extra

session is not always possible) . However , i t seems to be contrary to the

program’s goals not to handle the problem, and students could perceive

35

this ignoring as “the program cannot deal with things l ike this” ( Van

der Meulen e t al . , in prep) .

In sum, we think that both the ap plication as the study of i t s

effectiveness could be modif ied to the extent tha t we could have a

better view on the quali ty of EFE, which has a lot of potential for

being used in secondary school by educators to promote a healthy

personal and social develo pment of thei r students.

36

References

Bandura , A. (2002). Select ive moral disengagement in the exercise of

moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31 , 101-119.

Barriga , A. Q. , Gibbs, J . C. , Potter, G. B. , & Liau, A. K. (2001 ) . How I

Think (HIT) questionnaire manual . Champaign, Il . : Research Press.

Barriga , A. Q. , Morison, E.M., Liau, A. K. & Gibbs, J . C. (2001).

Moral cogni tion : Expla ining the gender di fference in ant isocial

behavior . Merril l -Palmer Quarterly , 47, 532-562.

del Barrio, C. , Almeida , A. , van der Meulen, K. , Barrios, A. , &

Gut iérrez, H. (2003). Representaciones acerca del malt ra to entre

iguales, at r ibuciones emocionales y percepción de estrategias de

cambio a part ir de un inst rumento narrat ivo : SCAN - Bullying.

[Representat ions on peer victimization, emot ional at tr ibutions,

and percept ions of solutions, obta ined wi th a narra tive inst rument :

SCAN-Bullying.] Infancia y Aprendizaje, 26 , 63-78.

del Barrio, C. , Barrios, A. , Granizo, L. , van der Meulen, K. , Andrés, S.

y Gut ierrez, H. (2011). Contribuyendo al bienestar emocional de

37

los compañeros : evaluación del Programa Compañeros Ayudantes

en un insti tuto madrileño.[Contribut ing to peers’ emot ional

wellbeing: evaluation of the Peer Support Program in a secondary

school in Madrid -Spain.] European Journal of Educat ion and

Psychology, 4 , 5-17.

del Barrio, C. , Martín , E. , Almeida, A. y Barr ios, A. (2003). Del

mal trato y ot ros conceptos relac ionados con la agresión entre

escolares, y su estudio psicológico [About malt reatment and other

concepts rela ted to aggression between scholars, and i t s

psychological study] . Infancia y Aprendizaje, 26 , 9-24.

del Barrio, C. , Martín , E. , Montero, I. , Gut iérrez, H. , Barrios, A. & de

Dios, M. (2008). Bullying and social exclusion in Spanish

secondary schools: National trends from 1999 to 2006.

Internat ional Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 8 , 657-

677.

del Barrio, C. , van der Meulen, K. y Barrios, A. (2002). Otro t ipo de

mal trato: e l abuso de poder ent re escolares [Another kind of

38

maltreatment : abuse o f power between students]. Bienestar y

Protección Infant il , 1 , 37-69.

del Barrio, C. , van der Meulen, K. , Barrios, A. , Gut ierrez, H. , Granizo,

L. & Almeida , A. ( In prep.) . Thinking about peer bullying in

schools : children’s and adolescents’ concept ions on emotions,

coping st ra tegies and causal explanations. Universidad Autónoma

de Madrid.

Blasi , A. & Glodis, K. (1995). The development of identi ty. A cri t ical

analysis from the perspect ive of the se lf as subject. Developmental

Review, 15 , 404-433

Brugman, D. & Gibbs, J .C. (2010). The EQUIP program: towards an

evidence-based program for the prevention and reduct ion of

antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Character Education,

8 , vi i -xii .

Brugman, D. , Podolskij , A.I. , Heymans, P.G. , Boom, J . , Karabanova,

O. & Idobaeva, O. (2003). Percept ion of moral atmosphere in

school and norm-transgressive behavior in adolescents : An

39

intervention study. Internat ional Journal of Behavioral

Development, 27 , pp. 289-300.

Bukowski , W. M. & Sippola , L. K. (2001). Groups, individuals, and

victimizat ion : A view of the peer system. In J . Juvonen y S.

Graham (Eds.) , Peer harassment in school: The pl ight of the

vulnerable and v ict imized . New York : Gui l ford, pp. 355 -377.

Cowie , H. & Wallace , P. (2 000). Peer Support in Action. London: Sage.

DiBiase , A. M. (2010). The impact of a psycho -educational prevent ion

program for behaviora lly at -r isk students : EQUIP for Educators.

Journal of Research in Character Educat ion, 8 , 21-59.

DiBiase , A. M., Gibbs, J . C. , Pot ter , G. B. , & Spring, B. (2005).

EQUIP for Educators. Teaching Youth (Grades 5 -8) to Think and

Act Responsibly . Champaign, IL: Research Press.

DiBiase , A. M., Gibbs, J . C. , Pot ter , G. B. , van der Meulen, K. ,

Granizo, L. & del Barrio, C. (2010). EQUIPAR para educadores.

Adolescentes en si tuación de conf l icto [EQUIP for Educators.

Adolescents in conflict s i tuations] . Madrid: La Catara ta .

40

Gasser, L. & Kel ler, M. (2009). Are the competent the moral ly good?

Perspect ive taking and moral mot ivation of children involved in

bullying. Social Development , 18 , 798–816.

Gibbs, J . C. (2003). Moral development and reality: Beyond the

theories of Kohlberg and Hof fman . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibbs, J . C., Pot ter , G. B. , Barr iga, A. Q. , & Liau, A. K. (1996).

Developing the helping skill s and prosocia l motivation of

aggressive adolescents in peer group programs. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 1 , 285-305.

Gibbs, J . C., Pot ter , G. & Goldste in, A. P. (1995). The EQUIP

program: Teaching youth to think and act responsibly through a

peer-helping approach. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Gini, G. (2006). Social cognit ion and moral cognit ion in bullying:

What’s wrong? Aggressive behavior, 32 , 528-539.

Goldstein, A. P. (1999). The Prepare Curriculum: Teaching prosocial

competencies (Rev. ed.) . Champaign, IL: Research Press.

41

Goldstein, A.P. , Gl ick, B. & Gibbs, J .C. (1998). Aggression

Replacement Training: A comprehensive intervention for

aggressive youth (Rev. ed.) . Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Høst , K. , Brugman, D. , Tavecchio, L. W. C. & Beem, A. L. (1998).

Students’ percept ion of the moral atmosphere in secondary schools

and the relat ionship between moral competence and moral

atmosphere . Journal of Moral Education , 27 , 47-70.

Insti tute of Medic ine (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders:

Front iers for prevent ive intervention research . Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Leeman, L. W., Gibbs, J . C. & Ful ler, D. (1993). Evaluation of a

multi -component group t reatment program for juvenile delinquents.

Aggressive Behavior, 19 , 281-292.

Matsui , T ., Tsuzuki, T. , Kakuyama, T. & Ongla tco, M. L. (1996).

Long-term outcomes of ear ly vict imization by peers among

japanese male universit y students : model of a vicious cycle .

Psychological Reports, 79, 711-720.

42

van der Meulen, K. (2003). Cuentos de miedo en la escuela: buscando

el sent ido del mal trato entre iguales en la niñez, adolescencia y

edad adulta. [Frightening stories in school: looking for the

meaning of peer bully ing in childho od, adolescence and

adulthood] . Unpublished Doctoral Disserta tion, Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

van der Meulen, K. , del Barrio, C. & de Dios, M. (in prep.) . Using the

EQUIP for Educators program in secondary education : evaluation

of the program and measured effectiveness. Universidad

Autónoma de Madrid, Spain.

van der Meulen, K. , Granizo, L. & del Barrio, C. (2010). Using EQUIP

for Educators to prevent peer vic timization in secondary school .

Journal of Research in Character Educat ion, 8 , 61–76.

van der Meulen, K. , Granizo, L. , Rodriguez, P. & Juanes, A. (2009).

The Equip Program for Educators in Secondary School:

Evaluation of this Approach to Prevent ing Peer Vict imization.

43

Presenta tion at the XIV European Conference on Developmental

Psychology, August 18-22, Vi lnius, Li thuania .

Nishina , A. , Juvonen, J . , & Witkow, M. R., (2005). Sticks and stones

may break my bones but names wi ll make me fee l sick: The

consequences of peer harassment . Journal of Clinical Chi ld and

Adolescent Psychology , 34 , 37-48.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can

do . Oxford, England : Blackwell .

Power, C. , Higgins, A. , & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg’s

approach to moral education . New York : Columbia .

Salmival li , C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group : A review.

Aggression and violent behavior, 15, 112-120.

Salmival li , C. , Lagerspetz, K. M. J . , Björkqvist , K. , Österman, K. &

Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process. Participant

roles and their re lat ions to social s tatus wi thin the group.

Aggressive Behavior, 22 , 1-15.

44

Salmival li , C. & Voeten, M. (2004). Connect ions between at ti tudes,

group norms, and behaviors associated wi th bullying in schools.

Internat ional Journal of Behavioral Development , 28 , 246-258.

Schäfer , M., Korn, S. , Smith, P.K. , Hunter, S.C. , Mora -Merchán, J .A. ,

Singer , M.M. &van der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd:

Recollect ions of bullying. Bri tish Journal of Developmental

Psychology , 22 , 379-394.

Smith, P. K. , Pepler , D. & Rigby, K. (2 004). Bullying in schools: how

successful can interventions be? Cambridge : Universit y Press.

Sul livan, K. , Cleary, M., & Sul livan, G. (2004). Bully ing in secondary

schools . London: Paul Chapman.

Toda, Y. (2005). Bul lying and Peer Support Systems in Japan:

Intervent ion Research. In D. Shwalb, J . Nakazawa, & B.Shwalb

(Eds.) Appl ied Developmental Psychology: Theory , Practice, and

Research from Japan. Greenwich, CT.: Information Age Publ ishing.

van der Velden, F. , Brugman, D., Boom, J . & Koops, W. (2010).

Effects of EQUIP for Educators on students’ sel f -serving

45

cognit ive distort ions, moral judgment and antosocial behavior.

Journal of Research in Character Educat ion, 8 , 77-95.

van Westerlaak, J . (April 7th, 2006). Personal communicat ion.

Whitney, I. & Smith, P.K. ( 1993). A survey of the nature and extent of

bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educat ional

Research , 35, 3–25.