Background:

Several differences have identified differences in the same-sex friendships between school-age males and females. While there are plenty of similarities in the same-sex friendships of males and females, there are notable differences that are relevant to the way interpersonal conflict is structured. The friendships of female students tend to be characterized by greater emotional intimacy than those of school-aged males. In children as young as 6 years old this is evident. Additionally, it holds true as children age, as well as across children of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Furthermore, females tend to engage in more efforts to preserve friendships; demonstrating more frequent contact and socialization. When we consider that the friendships of male youth are often characterized by greater involvement in physical activities that do not require the exchange of personal information or emotional intimacy, some of the immediate differences between male and female friendships in school-aged youth. Although the relationships between females are characterized by higher levels of interpersonal intimacy than their male counterparts, females often have more severe conflict than males.

One reason the authors of the study suggest that females have more severe interpersonal conflict is exactly due to the high degree of emotional intimacy. When females have conflict with each other, they are more likely to harbor awareness of confidential information about the other person that is likely to become weaponized. Additionally, the intense need for shared confidences can be a potential source of misunderstanding and conflict for females. In contrast, males are more likely than females to respond to conflicts with same-sex peers by directly confronting the offender verbally or physically. Directly responding to a peer who has committed an offensive act, without divulging sensitive personal information about the person, may facilitate resolution of the conflict. Provided more serious aggression is avoided. What’s more, the restrained emotions in males’ same-sex friendships provide for less intense conflict, when conflict does occur.

Differences between male and female friendships

The structure of the friendships differs between males and females as well. The closest same-sex friends of females are more likely than those of males to occur in isolation. An example would be two close friends who magnify the strength of their bond by socially isolating from the milieu. Thus, demonstrating to themselves and the rest of the group that the bond is exclusive. Males’ closest same-sex friendships are more typically embedded within the context of a larger group. Think about two good male friends who are on the same sports team. While their friendship is exalted, it is not outside the context of the rest of the social milieu.

The notable differences between these two friendship paradigms are magnified under the stress of conflict. When a female and her closest same-sex friend have conflict, there is not any peer support group to ground the conflict and provide mediation. Groups can provide more objective third-party assessments during times of conflict; additionally, established groups can provide allies, alternate partners, as well as eliciting loyalty to a larger organization, all of which moderate the escalation of interpersonal conflicts. Groups can also help diffuse negative emotional responses to the inevitable social comparisons that occur between any two individuals in a relationship by providing additional individuals with whom more favorable comparisons may be drawn. This is to say that when you only have one person to compare yourself to, if they are objectively better than you, you are either a success or a failure. However, when you have an entire group of people, chances are you might not be the strongest in the group, but you are likely not the weakest either. An important consideration to mitigate interpersonal conflict.

How did the study examine conflict resolution

The authors of this study examined middle school students, in 5^th, 7^th, and 9^th grade, over the course of a year. And the results of the study suggested that 1) the closest SSF of females exhibited greater signs of emotional vulnerability than did their male peers. 2) Females imagined they would feel significantly worse than males were there current closest same-sex friendship to end. 3) Females also believed their lives would change significantly more than would males’ lives were their current closest same-sex friendship to end. 4) Despite the shorter duration of females compared with males’ closest same-sex friendships, significantly more females (36%) than males (17%) reported that their closest same-sex friend already had done something to hurt their friendship. Finally, 5) females reported having significantly more close friends with whom they were no longer friends than did males.

How did they measure close friendships?

We could imagine that when a female experiences the ending of a friendship, it is the case that she has to shed the skin of that friendship, so-to-speak, in order to find a new friend. This would help us understand the 5^th point, above, that females were more likely to be no longer friends with old friends. It would also help us understand that females who lost friendships are at greater risk for ending up feeling as though they are along. Compared to males, who are likely to cycle through the same social milieu and find new friends. This is consistent with findings that indicate that males are likely to indicate that their best friends are people whom they have not spoken too in many years. It is as if male friendships simply become dormant for a period of hibernation.

What kinds of questions were asked to measure friendship and conflict resolution?

Participants were asked to name their three closest same-sex friends, and then were asked “which of these friends is your very closest friend?” The students were asked about how often they “talk or do things with [close friend’s name]?,” followed by a scale that consisted of: 1 (everyday), 2 (2-3 days a week), 3 (once a week), 4 (a few times a month), and 5 (once a month or less). The second question assessed duration of friendship in months: “How long have you been friends?,” followed by a scale that consisted of: 1 (less than 1 month), 2 (1-3 months), 3 (3.6 months), 4 (6 months to 1 year), or 5 (more than 1 year).

Participants were also asked about anticipated emotional reactions to the potential termination of their closest same-sex friendships. Students were asked: “How badly would you feel if your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (would not care at all) to 5 (would feel very badly). The second question asked: “How much would your life change if your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (would not change at all) to 5 (would change very much). The final question addressed whether the friendship had ever been threatened: “Has [close friend] ever done or said something to you that hurt your friendship?,” followed by 1 (no) or 2 (yes).

The third section of questions identified prior close same-sex friendships that ended. Participants were asked: “Have you ever had a close friend of the same sex with whom you are no longer friends?” Participants were then asked to list the names of those friends. For those who listed one or more names, the following questions were posed: first, “How badly did you feel when your friendship with [close friend] ended,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (did not care at all) to 5 (felt very badly). Second, “How much did you life change when your friendship with [close friend] ended?,” followed by a scale ranging from 1 (did not change at all) to 5 (changed very much). And each of these questions were also asked to the participants former friends. For this section, responses to each question were averaged across all former close same-sex friends of a participant.

Where do we go from here?

The authors of the study found no differences in how males and females felt when their closest same-sex friendships dissolved. A positive indication that the dissolution of a close friendship was equally difficult for both genders, regardless of the context and gender differences in the relationship. One guess as to why these differences in conflict resolution is that females are less developed to manage conflict at this stage of their lives; however, the authors only note this for consideration. Instead, placing more weight on the nature of the heightened levels of emotional intimacy, and friendships that occur in more isolated contexts. One thing is certain, conflict resolution is a critical developmental skill for young people to learn. And something we will explore further in our next post!

Check out some of our other posts:

Personality: The heart of diversity

Compassion = Empathy + Action

Social Media – Tool or trap?

The post Are female friendships more fragile? appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.

What determines happiness?

We know that happiness is a tough concept to get our hands on. Nathanial Hawthorne said that “happiness is a butterfly, which, when pursued, is always just beyond your grasp,” which seems to be an accurate summary. A whole bunch of different things can contribute to how happy we feel at any one time. Things like our health, grades, income, politics, and the news can all affect our happiness. But, the authors of the study suggest that the happiness of others may be a key determinant of our happiness. Said another way: people who surround themselves with happy people, are happy.

There is a relationship between us and others when it comes to happiness

The results from the study of our social networks suggest that happy people tend to be connected to each other. In fact, a person is 15.3% more likely to be happy if directly connected to someone who is happy! That is pretty amazing. The way we feel about ourselves actually impacts how those who are close to us feel. Similarly, the way the people close to us feel about themselves will affect how we feel about ourselves. The happiness effect does not stop at direct connections, however. A person who is connected to a person who is connected to a happy person is almost 10% more likely to be happy. And a person who is three degrees removed from a happy person, the effect is 5.6%. That means just knowing a happy person increases the likelihood that you will be happy.

Get connected and get happy

Furthermore, the article reports that the better connected one’s friends and family, the more likely one will attain happiness in the future. Suggesting that the people who surround themselves with others are likely to be happy, and that is likely to spread. In more good news, the article suggests that happy friends make us happier. But, unhappy friends do not make us equally as unhappy. In other words, adding happy friends to your network is likely to boost the overall happiness of the network. But don’t forget about the unhappy folks too. The happy group is more likely to lift them up, rather than be “brought down.”

What about happy neighbors??

The news gets better! If your happy friends live within a mile of you, the probability that you increase your happiness goes up by 25%. There is good news for adults as well: married couples who become happy increase the happiness of their spouse by 8%. And siblings who live near each other increase happiness by 14%. Happy neighbors? They increase your happiness by 34%! Sadly, there was not any affect from happy coworkers…

In summary

Changes in happiness can ripple through social groups. The happiness of an individual is associated with the happiness of people up to three degrees removed from them. Happiness is not simply a function of individual experience/choice, it may be a property of groups of people. What is tough about our current socially-isolated state is that happiness requires close physical proximity to spread. The health and well-being of others really does affect us, personally. Which is likely why the times we are living through are so uniquely challenging. But, if we can stay connected to each other, and support one-another with care and kindness we will make it. Happiness is not merely the province of isolated individuals. We are wrapped up in the health and well-being of others. And that is a thought that brings me hope.

Check out the article from BJM: Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study

Check out a few other articles from Stand4Kind:

COVID-19 closed schools? Student tips for time at home

Understanding the bystander effect

Teachers: Create bully-free classrooms

The post Is happiness contagious? appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.

In Dr. Catherine Bradshaw’s 2015 article published in the journal of the American Psychologist (Link provided below), she offers us an understanding of the current state of bullying prevention programs around the nation, and around the world. The first point she highlights is the importance of bullying prevention. She notes the detrimental effects that bullying has on behavioral, mental health, and academic outcomes. Not only for those who are victimized but also for youth who bully and youth who witness bullying. She also notes that the number of bullying prevention programs being used by schools has increased dramatically since the 1990s, and that [nearly] all states have passed laws related to bullying. Many of those laws encourage the use of programs or official strategies to prevent bullying. Unfortunately, she concludes her introduction by highlighting the fact that while there is a growing number of these school-based programs, relatively few programs have been formally tested to ensure they are working.

Are Bullying Prevention Programs Effective?

Features of Promising Bullying Prevention Programs:

There are some features we know to be associated with more effective bullying prevention. At the level of the teacher there is evidence showing closer supervision on the playground, the use of consistent disciplinary methods, and classroom management strategies have all been shown be effective. Classroom and schoolwide rules related to bullying and teacher trainings are also features of effective programs. Another effective element includes the use of parent trainings, meetings, and information exchange (question & answer forums, bullying awareness material, etc). Finally, the amount of time and the intensity of the trainings have been found to be positively associated with successful programs. With extended/consistent program trainings producing quality results.

Recommended Bullying Prevention Approaches

Public Health Approach to Bullying Prevention:

If you work in education and are familiar with PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), then you are familiar with the three-tiered public health model approach to bullying prevention. The idea of the three-tiered, pyramid-type, intervention system is that most students will respond to the basic level of intervention, the Universal Intervention. Think of this as the foundation of the pyramid. The second tier, the Selective Interventions, a smaller group of students, around 10-15%, is targeted. And in the third tier, the Indicated Interventions, a much smaller groups of students, around 5%, are targeted individually with specific interventions.

Universal Interventions may include things like a focus on improving school climate, shifting the norms about bullying, and targeting bystander behavior. These types of efforts will effectively reduce bullying for the majority (80%) of the student body. Selective Interventions include more specific social skills training and instruction about emotional-regulation for small groups of youth identified at risk for becoming involved in bullying. An example of Indicated Interventions might be to address specific mental health concerns regarding an individual student, or specific concerns about the youth’s family. Tiered systems allow for students to be met with the appropriate level of intervention based on their individual needs.

Multicomponent Programs:

It is recommended that schools implement multiple integrated systems of intervention. Dr. Bradshaw recommends programs that incorporate classroom level discussions about bullying, social-emotional skills, and strategies for responding to bulling with school-climate efforts aimed at reducing aggressive behavior, and increasing student support. These kinds of multicomponent programs provide children with direct instruction on replacement behaviors and skills for avoiding and effectively responding to bullying.

Schoolwide Prevention Activities:

Schools are recommended to address their social environment and broader culture and climate of bullying. Given the relationship between school climate and bullying, activities that improve safety, engagement, and culture are thought to translate into bullying reduction. School-wide prevention efforts that incorporate staff at every level and monitor students in every context (i.e., in class, during lunch, at recess, it the hallways, etc.) are likely to function well in bullying prevention. Additionally, many schools are using Mindfulness as a way to help students increase self-awareness and help-seeking.

Involve Families & Communities in Bullying Prevention:

Dr. Bradshaw notes the critical role played by families in preventing bullying at school. Families can support children in the development of coping skills, and also the disclosure of incidence of bullying so that school officials can more quickly address the behavior. Additionally, parents benefit from training in how to talk with their children about bullying, how to communicate their concerns about the bullying to the school, and understanding new ways to get actively involved in school-based prevention efforts. Dr. Bradshaw is quick to remind us that a family that eats dinner together 4 or more times per week is enough to mitigate the negative effects of bullying. And that a caring adult, in any position, can intervene when they see bullying.

Sustained and Integrated Bullying Prevention Efforts:

Adopting different programs to address each new problem that emerges may be tempting. However, recent research indicates that schools are implementing approximately 14 different programs to prevent violence and promote a safe learning environment. This kind of expansive programming can be overwhelming for staff, and lead to confusion about the goals and objectives. The inconsistency that trickles down to the students means fidelity is poor, and expectations are confusing. Programs that have a broader focus on preventing aggressive and disruptive behavior by addressing social-emotional skills, interpersonal conflict, and behavioral inhibition would address bullying in addition to other problem behaviors. There will be considerable planning involved in this type of intervention development and implementation, and the commitment to use a continuum of positive, and proactive supports, instead of traditionally reactive and punitive approaches to discipline.

Focus on Program Fidelity:

Forming a counsel to lead the implementation, help with the integration of programs, and monitor outcomes can be a critical first step in ensuring project success. Students and teachers can both be represented, and tasks can be developed and assigned. Outcomes should be articulated and data should be tracked to best understand the effect-size of the program. An AP Statistics class may be a good source of help with the data collection and analysis!

Future Directions in Bullying Prevention Research and Programming

Bullying Prevention Measurement Challenges:

“One problem in bullying prevention programs,” Dr. Bradshaw writes, “is assessing the outcome of bullying.” We understand what bullying is, but identifying it in a given moment is very difficult. How can a person determine, in the moment, if an interaction between two students meets those three criteria of being 1) intentionally hurtful, 2) directed at a person without power by a person with power, and 3) falling in a pattern that is repeated over time? Researchers generally agree that self-reports are among the most valid indicators of bullying, as opposed to observational data, peer reports, or teachers’ ratings. It is also well established in the literature that the extent of agreement regarding the perceived problem and prevalence of school bullying varies across informants. Said another way, rates of bullying depend on who you ask. It is important for program development and program outcomes for us to understand a program may show significant impact on children’s bullying-related attitudes and teachers’ observations of bullying, but may not significantly change student self-reports of bullying. Which was the case for a bullying prevention program called Steps to Respect. It can be all too easy for school personnel to dismiss bullying as something that is not a part of our school, but we have to remember that the CDC Data clearly identifies around 20% of our youth as being victimized by bullying.

Rigor in Study Design:

There are a “large number of programs currently in use,” notes Bradshaw. Establishing evidence to support a program is difficult because of the sheer number of programs and the difficulty in implementing a program to fidelity. Bradshaw notes that implementing a particular program effectively, even one that has been shown to be empirically effective, is not a “guarantee that bullying intervention/prevention efforts will be effective” because the program is being “implemented in a different setting or in a different cultural context.” Additionally, most program evaluations suffer from “short follow-up periods” (e.g., a single school year). This short time span may not allow for “contextual changes, such as improvements in the school climate or increases in staff supervision and intervention.” Given the difficulty in replication, schools choosing to use specific programs, should consider how they are going to monitor changes in their student body/teachers over time. Bradshaw notes, specifically, that the process of change is likely slow when factors such as norms about retaliation and bystander intervention are the target of intervention.

What Works for Whom?

Programs may require specific evaluation if the school environment where they are being implemented differs from the setting or context of research origin. Establishing effectiveness could be difficult given specific “cultural or community contexts in which students or families who report bullying are shunned by their peers or other community members, thereby potentially compromising the effectiveness of approaches which emphasize reporting bullying to adults.” Schools can also choose to consider if identifying individual characteristics of the child, peer relationship, school environment, and bullying situation are serving as risk factors or protective factors for involvement in bullying. Identifying the risk factors for children will help identify the potential targets. Identifying the potential targets will help us insulate them with protective factors.

Conclusion

Consideration of Values & Conclusions

Dr. Bradshaw concludes the article by mentioning “the recent tragic acts of violence in American schools” that “remind us of the importance of mental health promotion within this context [schools]. She reiterates the importance of emphasizing children’s social-emotional development while pursuing the increasing requirements put forward by “high stakes testing,” and encourages us to remember that holistic and multidisciplinary approaches are needed to better prevent bullying and create safe schools.

___

Bradshaw, C.P. (2015). Translating Research to Practice in Bullying Prevention. American Psychologist, 70(4), 322-332.

The post Bullying Prevention: Research to Practice appeared first on Stand 4 Kind.