HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

J Educ Psychol. 2018 November ; 110(8): 1192–1201. doi:10.1037/edu0000265.

Cooperative Learning in Middle School: A Means to Improve

Peer Relations and Reduce Victimization, Bullying, and Related
Outcomes
Mark J. Van Ryzin1 and Cary J. Roseth2
1Oregon Research Institute, 1776 Millrace, Eugene, OR 97403, Phone: (541) 484-2123
Author Manuscript

2Michigan State University, College of Education, East Lansing, MI, Phone: (517) 432-0454

Abstract
Peer victimization is a highly stressful experience that impacts up to a third of all adolescents and
can contribute to a variety of negative outcomes, including elevated anxiety, depression, drug use,
and delinquency, as well as reduced self-esteem, school attendance, and academic achievement.
Current prevention approaches (e.g., the Olweus program) have a mixed record in American
schools. We propose a new approach to prevention that leverages theory and research surrounding
the social aspects of bullying and victimization, particularly peer relations. Our approach attempts
to (1) break down the process of homophily among bullies, and (2) provide a mechanism by which
socially isolated students can develop new friendships. Our approach asks teachers to increase
opportunities for positive peer interaction through carefully structured, group-based learning
Author Manuscript

activities in school (i.e., cooperative learning). We hypothesized that these positive peer
interactions would result in reductions in bullying, victimization, perceived stress, and emotional
problems, as well as increases in peer relatedness, among more marginalized students. Using a
cluster randomized trial with 15 rural middle schools in the Pacific Northwest (N = 1,460 7th grade
students), we found that cooperative learning significantly reduced bullying, victimization, and
perceived stress for marginalized students (i.e., moderated effects), and reduced emotional
problems and enhanced relatedness for all students (i.e., main effects). Given that cooperative
learning has already been shown to enhance student engagement and achievement in prior
research, our results demonstrate that cooperative learning can be a permanent, sustainable
component of teacher training and school culture.

Keywords
Author Manuscript

cooperative learning; bullying; victimization; peer relations; middle school

Introduction
Peer victimization, defined as the experience of harassment and aggression by peers,
including teasing, threatening, and hitting, is one of the most stressful experiences that an
adolescent can encounter (Sebastian, Viding, Williams, & Blakemore, 2010). Unfortunately,

Correspondence to: Mark J. Van Ryzin.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 2

it is also quite common; research indicates that anywhere from a quarter to a third of all
Author Manuscript

students are victimized by peers (Craig et al., 2009; World Health Organization, 2012).
Biological and social changes during the teenage years render adolescents particularly
vulnerable to the effects of peer victimization. From a biological perspective, adolescents
become increasingly sensitive to social reward (Fareri, Martin, & Delgado, 2008; Sebastian
et al., 2010), while they also begin to exhibit a significant physiological stress response
(Stroud et al., 2009) and, concomitantly, a lag in self-regulatory capability (Prencipe et al.,
2011). At the same time, peers become increasingly important as a source of social support
and affiliation during this developmental period (Steinberg & Morris, 2001), and the
transition to middle school is often accompanied by a surge in aggressive and exclusionary
behavior (Cook et al., 2010; Robers, Kemp, & Truman, 2013).

As a result of these developmental changes, peer victimization can be highly impactful for
adolescents. Research on a variety of different populations (e.g., U.S. vs. international,
Author Manuscript

straight vs. LGBT) finds that victimization predicts a wide variety of negative outcomes in
middle schoolers, including elevated levels of anxiety, depression, drug use, and
delinquency, and lower levels of self-esteem, school attendance, and academic achievement
(Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010; Barchia & Bussey, 2010; Cheng et al., 2010;
Juvonen, Wang, & Espinoza, 2011; Martinelli et al., 2011; Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray,
2011; Russell, Ryan, Toomey, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2011; Sullivan, Farrell, & Kliewer, 2006;
Thijs & Verkuyten, 2008). Research also finds that chronic stress in adolescence may have
long-term negative effects in areas such as brain functioning (e.g., reduced hippocampal
volume, impaired functioning of the serotonergic and dopaminergic systems; Brown &
Spencer, 2013; Buwalda, Geerdink, Vidal, & Koolhaas, 2011) and physical health (e.g.,
cardiovascular disease, obesity, metabolic syndrome; Miller, Chen, & Parker, 2011;
Pervanidou & Chrousos, 2012). All of this has led the World Health Organization (2012) to
Author Manuscript

classify peer victimization as a significant public health problem, and researchers have
emphasized middle school as a critical time to intervene in order to prevent negative long-
term consequences (Rueger et al., 2011).

Current School-based Approaches to Prevention

The most widespread approach to preventing victimization and related problems is the
Olweus program (Olweus, 1993), which typically involves direct instruction in topics related
to bullying (i.e., harassment or aggressive behavior directed at another in the context of a
power imbalance) and victimization, including awareness, empathy, attitudes, and peer
norms. To date, research has failed to establish a strong empirical justification for the
Olweus approach. Specifically, the results of a meta-analysis of whole-school anti-bullying
programs found significant effects, but effect sizes were small to negligible, and the authors
Author Manuscript

concluded that the programs did not achieve practical significance (Ferguson, Miguel,
Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007). Another meta-analysis (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008)
included approximately 15,386 K-12 students in Europe and the US, and positive effect sizes
were found for only about one-third of the study variables, which tended to be positive
changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of bullying and victimization rather than
actual behavior. A third meta-analysis by Ttofi, Farrington, and Baldry (2008) evaluated 44
bullying intervention studies, most of which were based on the Olweus program. Results

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 3

indicated that bullying and victimization were reduced by 17–23% in experimental schools
Author Manuscript

compared to control schools, although Ttofi and colleagues noted that anti-bullying
programs were more efficacious in smaller-scale European studies and less effective in the
United States, a conclusion that has been echoed in more recent reviews and meta-analyses
(Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014; Olweus & Limber, 2010). Finally, a recent large-scale trial of
a middle school anti-bullying program in the U.S. that was based upon the Olweus approach
reported significant effects on only two of seven outcomes, and only in one of the two states
participating in the trial (Espelage, Low, Polanin, & Brown, 2015). Taken together, this
research suggests that existing anti-bullying programs have not been universally effective in
reducing bullying, victimization, and related outcomes in American schools.

A New Approach to Prevention

In this study, we take a different approach to prevention that leverages theory and research
Author Manuscript

on the social aspects of bullying and victimization, particularly peer relations, which play a
vital role in this behavior. For example, bullies tend to aggregate in a phenomenon known as
homophily, in which individuals select friends based upon similarities in behavior and/or
attitudes (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Dishion et al., 1991). Within groups of bullies,
social norms are established that view bullying positively, and these norms elicit and
reinforce bullying behavior among group members (Hong & Espelage, 2012).

In addition, socially isolated students may be vulnerable to victimization due to their lack of
friends. Research finds that students with more social connections are less likely to be
victimized (Hodges, Malone, & Perry, 1997; Kendrick, Jutengren, & Stattin, 2012) and that
those who are socially rejected by peers are more likely to be victimized (Hodges & Perry,
1999; Veenstra et al., 2007). Research also finds that victimized children are less likely to
form new friendships (Ellis & Zarbatany, 2007), making it particularly difficult for
Author Manuscript

victimized children to escape their social isolation and avoid future victimization.

Our prevention approach, which focuses solely on peer relations and peer networks, attempts
to (1) break down the process of homophily among bullies, and (2) provide a mechanism by
which isolated students can develop new friendships. To achieve both of these ends, our
approach asks teachers to increase opportunities for positive peer interaction through
carefully structured group-based learning activities in school. Theoretically, by giving
students the opportunity to work with a range of peers, these group-based learning activities
should lead to both reductions in homophily (as youth who may be prone to bullying are
exposed to a greater cross-section of the social network, including peers less supportive of
bullying) and reductions in social isolation (as marginalized youth are given the opportunity
to develop new friendships).
Author Manuscript

Simply putting students in groups, however, does not guarantee that positive social
interactions will occur. In fact, social psychological research on stereotyping, prejudice, and
discrimination demonstrates that imposing contact among students who belong to different
social cliques can actually exacerbate perceived differences by reinforcing and strengthening
the latent competitive dynamic underlying in- and out-group perceptions (Dovidio, Gaertner,
& Saguy, 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). In order for peer interaction to promote true
social integration, the social context must promote the breakdown of biases and prejudices

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 4

among students who belong to different social groups (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp,
Author Manuscript

2008).

Theory and research (e.g., Allport, 1954; Johnson, Johnson, & Maruyama, 1983) suggest
that the key ingredient for creating such a social context is positive interdependence, i.e.,
when goals are structured such that individuals can attain their goals if (and only if) others in
their group also reach their goals. Under conditions of positive interdependence, patterns of
peer interaction change; instead of competing with or ignoring one another, peers are more
likely to promote the success of one another through mutual assistance, emotional support,
and sharing of resources (Deutsch, 1949, 1962). In turn, these positive social interactions
increase interpersonal attraction and acceptance, reduce social isolation, and support the
development of new friendships (Johnson, Johnson, Roseth, & Shin, 2014; Mikami et al.,
2005). Indeed, research on peer interactions reviewed by Bierman (2004) suggests that gains
in social skills and knowledge alone are insufficient to reduce social isolation; rather, only
Author Manuscript

positive interdependence (and the subsequent positive social interactions that arise from
these experiences) can motivate youth to re-evaluate previous conclusions regarding the
social desirability of others.

Cooperative learning is one of the few empirically supported instructional approaches that
ensures the establishment of positive interdependence in group-based learning activities.
Cooperative learning is an umbrella term that includes reciprocal teaching, peer tutoring,
jigsaw, and other group-based activities in which peers work together to maximize one
another’s learning (Johnson, Johnson & Holubec, 2013). Cooperative learning has robust
empirical evidence documenting its positive effects on interpersonal attraction, social
acceptance, and academic achievement (Ginsburg-Block et al., 2006; Johnson & Johnson,
1989, 2005). In a meta-analysis of 148 studies representing over 17,000 early adolescents,
Author Manuscript

Roseth et al. (2008) showed that cooperative goal structures (i.e., cooperative learning) were
associated with greater achievement (effect sizes .46 to .65) and more positive peer
relationships (effect sizes .42 to .56) compared to competitive and individualistic goal
structures. In addition, the relative effects of cooperative goal structures on achievement and
peer relationships were positively correlated, with positive changes in peer relationships
accounting for 33 to 40% of the variance in achievement. These findings suggest that
cooperative learning is an effective way to promote academic achievement while
simultaneously addressing some of the social processes that encourage bullying and
victimization.

To be clear, the use of cooperative learning as a means of building more positive peer
relationships and reducing bullying and victimization has been advocated previously as one
Author Manuscript

aspect of a broader prevention framework (e.g., Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Olweus, 1993).
Our approach proposes that an intervention focused solely on increasing cooperative
activities in the classroom can reduce bullying, victimization, and related problems. In other
words, rather than introducing a school-wide prevention program that has the potential to
divert time and resources from classroom instruction, the hypothesis tested here is that
simply implementing cooperative learning in the classroom will change peer relations in a
way that reduces bullying and victimization without the need for a structured anti-bullying
curriculum.

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 5

Current Study
Author Manuscript

This paper reports on a small-scale cluster randomized trial of the Johnsons’ approach to
cooperative learning (Johnson et al., 2013) as an intervention to prevent bullying and
victimization in middle school. We hypothesized that cooperative learning would result in
reductions in both bullying and victimization, as well as reductions in important side-effects
of victimization, including perceived stress and emotional problems (i.e., anxiety,
fearfulness). However, given that victimization is experienced by between a quarter and a
third of all adolescents (Craig et al., 2009; World Health Organization, 2012), we did not
necessarily expect to see effects across the entire sample. Rather, we hypothesized that
effects would be found among those youth who were socially marginalized or disengaged.
Thus, we evaluated whether the effects of cooperative learning on victimization, perceived
stress, and emotional problems would be moderated by baseline levels of marginalization,
which we defined as those students who were the least engaged in school at baseline.
Author Manuscript

We also wished to explore whether cooperative learning reduced bullying among

marginalized youth, which could potentially be considered “reactive aggression”, i.e.,
bullying perpetrated by victimized youth as a reaction against their victimized status. In
contrast, “proactive aggression” is more carefully planned and is generally exhibited by
more socially dominant youth (Hubbard, McAuliffe, Morrow, & Romano, 2010).

Finally, we wished to establish that cooperative learning was not just reducing negative
behavior but also promoting more positive outcomes, such as positive relationships among
students. Thus, we evaluated intervention effects on students’ sense of relatedness (i.e., peer
acceptance), again focusing on the more marginalized students.

Method
Author Manuscript

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

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

control vs. 7 intervention schools).

Our analytic sample included N = 1,460 7th grade students who enrolled in the project in the
fall of 2016 (see Figure 1). We achieved greater than 80% student participation at each
school by using a passive consent procedure and providing research staff to oversee the data
collection. We also offered compensation to the schools for participating in the project, and
enrolled participating students in a prize raffle. Student demographics by school are reported
in Table 1. Overall, the sample was 48.2% female (N = 703) and 76.4% White (N = 1,116).

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 6

Other racial/ethnic groups included Hispanic/Latino (14.3%, N = 209), multi-racial (4.2%, N

Author Manuscript

= 61), and American Indian/Alaska Native (3.5%, N = 51); our sample included less than
1% Asian, African-American, and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander. Overall, 13.9% (N =
203) were reported as having Special Ed status, 79.6% (N = 1162) did not have Special Ed
status, and 6.5% (N = 95) were missing this designation. Free and reduced price lunch
(FRPL) status was not made available by the schools, although school-level FRPL figures
(obtained from state records) are reported in Table 1.

Procedure
Training for intervention school staff began in the fall of 2016 and continued throughout the
2016–2017 school year, consisting of 3 half-day in-person sessions, periodic check-ins via
videoconference, and access to resources (e.g., newsletters). Training sessions were
conducted by D. W. and R. T. Johnson, supported by the authors, and utilized Cooperation in
Author Manuscript

the Classroom, 9th Edition by Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (2013); each staff member
was given a copy of the book. The three in-person training sessions per school were
conducted in (1) late September and early October, (2) late October through early December,
and (3) late January through late March. Due to the geographic dispersal of the schools, each
school received training individually according to their own schedule for professional
development.

Under the Johnson’s approach, cooperative learning can include reciprocal teaching, peer
tutoring, collaborative reading, and other methods in which peers help each other learn in
small groups under conditions of positive interdependence. The Johnsons’ approach also
emphasizes individual accountability, explicit coaching in collaborative skills, a high degree
of face-to-face interaction, and guided processing of group performance. Cooperative
learning is viewed as a conceptual framework within which teachers can apply the principal
Author Manuscript

of positive interdependence to design their own group-based activities using existing

curricula.

Measures
Student data collection was conducted in September/October 2016 (baseline) and March
2017 (follow-up) using on-line surveys (i.e., Qualtrics; https://www.qualtrics.com/). The
time between data collection points varied across schools but averaged five and a half
months. To assess fidelity of implementation, we also conducted teacher observations. A
Certificate of Confidentiality was obtained for these data from NIAAA (#CC-AA-17-011).
To shrink the overall number of items and reduce participant burden, existing data from
other studies were used to select the highest-loading items from each scale below (additional
information available from the first author).
Author Manuscript

Bullying and victimization—We used subscales from the University of Illinois Bully
Scale, a measure that has been an integral part of other studies of bullying and victimization
(Espelage & Holt, 2001). Bullying was assessed using 5 items, including “I teased other
students while we were in a group” and “I spread rumors about other students”. Alpha
reliability was .74 and .77 at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Victimization was
assessed using 3 items, including “Other students picked on me” and “Other students made

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 7

fun of me”. Alpha reliability was .93 and .94 at baseline and follow-up, respectively. For
Author Manuscript

both subscales, students responded on a 5-point scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (7 or more times)
and items were averaged to arrive at the subscale scores.

Perceived stress—We used 4 items from the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, &
Mermelstein, 1983), a widely used measure that has been applied in previous studies of
bullying and victimization (e.g., Estévez, Murgui, & Musitu, 2009; Martinelli et al., 2011;
Tynes, Giang, Williams, & Thompson, 2008). Items includes “In the last month, how often
have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?” and “In the last
month, how often have you felt that things were going your way?” (reverse scored). Students
responded on a 5-point scale from 0 (Never) to 4 (very often). Alpha reliability was .59 at
baseline and .63 at follow-up. Items were averaged to arrive at the scale score.

Emotional problems—We used three items from the Emotional Problems subscale of the
Author Manuscript

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998), which has
been used extensively in studies of adolescents (Muris, Meesters, & van den Berg, 2003;
Van Roy, Veenstra, & Clench-Aas, 2008). Items included “I worry a lot” and “I am often
unhappy, depressed or tearful”. Students responded on a 3-point scale from 1 (Not true) to 3
(Certainly true). Alpha reliability was .71 at baseline and .75 at follow-up. Items were
averaged to arrive at the scale score.

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

79 at follow-up. Items were averaged to arrive at the scale score.

Engagement—We used 4 items from the Behavioral Engagement subscale of the

Engagement vs. Disaffection with Learning Scale (Skinner & Belmont, 1993), which has
been linked to the quality of peer relations in previous research (Furrer & Skinner, 2003;
Tucker et al., 2002). Items included “I try hard to focus in class” and “In class, I do just
enough to get by” (reverse scored). Students responded on a 4-point scale from 1 (Not at all
true) to 4 (Very true). Alpha reliability was .75 at baseline. Items were averaged to arrive at
the scale score.

Demographics—Youth sex, ethnicity, and Special Ed status were obtained from school
records. Ethnicity was dichotomized to White (0) vs. non-White (1); the latter included
Author Manuscript

Hispanic/Latino students. Sex was coded as Male (0) and Female (1), and Special Ed status
was coded as No (0) and Yes (1).

Observed intervention fidelity—Research staff blind to intervention assignment

observed teaching practices in intervention and control schools. We trained our observers to
adequate reliability using simulated data before they were permitted to conduct observations
in actual classrooms, and we used an established observation protocol for key aspects of
cooperative learning (e.g., positive interdependence; Krol, Sleegers, Veenman, & Voeten,

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 8

2008; Veenman et al., 2002). Observations were conducted once in the late fall/early winter
Author Manuscript

and again in the spring. Observers remained in a classroom for an entire class period. In
smaller schools, observers were generally able to observe all 7th grade teachers within a
single day; for large schools, observers randomly selected a subset of all 7th grade teachers.

Analysis Plan
The multilevel nature of our data (i.e., students within schools) required an analytical
approach that addressed the statistical dependencies created by nesting. Thus, we evaluated
our hypotheses with linear mixed models in R (the lme4 package; Bates et al., 2013), which
allocate variance either “within” or “between” groups. In this model, student data (e.g.,
victimization, perceived stress) were at Level 1 (“within”) and school data (i.e., intervention
condition) were at Level 2 (“between”). All predictors were uncentered. Our small sample
did not permit the inclusion of random effects at the school level, so all individual-level
Author Manuscript

effects were fixed. We used interaction terms to represent moderation of intervention effects
by baseline levels of marginalization (i.e., low engagement); if the interaction effect was not
significant, we removed it and reported main effects. We controlled for sex differences in
these analyses, given existing research that has found such differences in bullying, perceived
stress, and emotional problems (Archer, 2004; Hampel & Petermann, 2006; Piccinelli &
Wilkinson, 2000).

Results
Descriptive data for all variables and correlations are presented in Table 2. ANOVA models
indicated that students in intervention and control schools did not differ in terms of baseline
levels of bullying [F(1,1451) = 1.99, ns], victimization [F(1,1450) = .05, ns], perceived
stress [F(1,1447) = 1.52, ns], or relatedness [F(1,1445) = .04, ns]. The two groups were
Author Manuscript

different, however, in terms of emotional problems [F(1,1454) = 6.34, p < .05], with
intervention schools being slightly lower; this effect was small (R2 < .01). With regards to
fidelity observations, ANOVA indicated significantly higher levels of observed positive
interdependence in intervention schools as compared to control schools, F(1,98) = 10.79, p
< .01, R2 = .10.

Next, we evaluated the effects of the intervention using linear mixed models that included
the interaction term (i.e., intervention condition by baseline engagement) predicting
bullying, victimization, perceived stress, emotional problems, and relatedness at follow-up,
controlling for baseline levels of each variable and student sex. Results are reported in Table
3; intervention effect sizes, which ranged from moderate to large, were calculated as the
percentage of the variance explained at each level of the model.
Author Manuscript

Results indicated that the interaction terms were significant for bullying, victimization, and
perceived stress, but not for emotional problems (B = .05, SE = 04, ns) or relatedness (B = −.
10, SE = 06, ns). Thus, we evaluated models for these two outcomes that did not contain the
interaction effect, and found that the main effect of the intervention was significant in both
cases, indicating that the intervention promoted lower levels of emotional problems and
higher levels of relatedness at follow-up across the sample rather than being found mainly
among the marginalized students. As per recommended practice (Jaccard & Turrisi, 2003),

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 9

the main effects for engagement at baseline and the intervention condition were not
Author Manuscript

interpreted when the interaction effect was significant. Mirroring previous research, we
found that females reported significantly higher levels of perceived stress and emotional
problems. Unexpectedly, we found no gender differences in bullying, and found that girls
reported greater levels of victimization and lower levels of relatedness.

The interaction effects are displayed in Figure 2 for two groups: low engagement (1 SD
below the mean) and high engagement (1 SD above the mean) at baseline. The left-hand side
of Figure 2 shows that low-engagement students in the intervention schools reported lower
levels of bullying, victimization, and perceived stress compared to similar students in the
control schools, while the right-hand side of Figure 2 shows that there were no such
differences among high-engagement students. Finally, in a post-hoc analysis (discussed in
more detail below), we evaluated the main effect of the intervention on bullying; it was not
significant (B = −.06, SE = 04, ns).
Author Manuscript

Discussion
Although cooperative learning possesses robust empirical evidence supporting its ability to
encourage academic motivation and achievement (Johnson et al., 2014), as well as
interpersonal attraction and social acceptance (Ginsburg-Block et al., 2006; Roseth et al.,
2008), it has not yet been tested as a stand-alone prevention program aimed at bullying,
victimization, and related affective consequences. In this study, we found that marginalized
(i.e., less engaged) students in intervention schools reported significantly lower levels of
bullying, victimization, and perceived stress as compared to control schools. Interestingly,
we found no significant interaction effects for emotional problems and relatedness, but did
find significant main effects, suggesting that the benefits of cooperative learning in reducing
Author Manuscript

emotional problems and enhancing relatedness were not found exclusively among
marginalized students.

In a post-hoc exploratory analyses, we did not find a significant main effect for bullying,
suggesting that, at least for our sample, the effects of cooperative learning on bullying were
found mainly among the marginalized students. In other words, cooperative learning
appeared to have a significant effect on the behavior of bully-victims (i.e., reactive
aggression), but not necessarily on the proactive aggression of bullies. We note that the
findings for victimization among marginalized students suggest that bullying was reduced
quite substantially within intervention schools, so our inability to detect a main effect for
bullying may be related to limitations in statistical power arising from our small sample of
middle schools. Future research with a larger sample of schools could explore whether
cooperative learning is, in fact, able to interrupt the process of homophily among bullies and
Author Manuscript

reduce the more proactive forms of aggression in middle school.

Overall, our results suggest that increased cooperative interactions during group-based
learning activities were able to significantly improve marginalized students’ experiences in
school. By encouraging the development of more positive social relations among students,
cooperative learning provided an avenue for socially marginalized students to escape their
victimized status and, in turn, reduced their perceived stress. These results are particularly

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 10

noteworthy given the stability of victimization in middle school (i.e., year-to-year stability
Author Manuscript

from .37 to .52; Juvonen et al., 2000; Salmivalli, Lappalainen, & Lagerspetz, 1998).
Cooperative learning also had salutary effects on the broader student population in terms of
increased peer relatedness and reduced emotional problems, suggesting that the school
climate was seen as more friendly and welcoming.

This research is limited in three key ways. First, it is based upon a relatively homogeneous
sample of rural students that was about three-quarters White, which limits the external
validity (generalizability) of the results. Second, all measures were self-report, and in some
cases had lower reliability, which limits internal validity. Future research should consider
additional data sources, such as teachers and/or parents, and more diverse populations.
Third, the small number of schools in our sample (i.e., 15) and the small number of time
points (i.e., 2) limited the complexity of the models that we were able to fit to the data, so
we were unable to explore mechanisms of effects (e.g., victimization may mediate the
Author Manuscript

effects of cooperative learning on perceived stress, at least among marginalized students).

Future research should examine these mechanisms in more detail.

Conclusion
The results of this randomized trial extend prior research on cooperative learning by
demonstrating that it not only promotes academic achievement, but also reduces bullying,
victimization, and stress among marginalized students and reduces emotional problems and
promotes peer relatedness across the general student population. Furthermore, the positive
peer interactions that arise out of cooperative learning have previously been found to reduce
deviant peer clustering and escalations in alcohol use in middle school (Van Ryzin &
Roseth, 2017), suggesting that schools implementing cooperative learning may realize
widespread improvements in student behavior in addition to the anticipated gains in
Author Manuscript

achievement.

In addition to its efficacy in promoting achievement and addressing a range of behavioral

problems in middle school, cooperative learning presents many other advantages compared
to existing curriculum-based prevention programs. For example, it does not require the
sacrifice of instructional time, and can be used in any subject, ensuring students receive a
high “dosage” across the school day. Importantly, cooperative learning techniques can be
shared among staff members, modified to fit new academic curricula and learning objectives,
and taught to new teachers by existing staff, ensuring that implementation can be sustained
despite teacher turnover and providing opportunities for best practices to spread within and
across schools and districts. Thus, our hope is that the results reported here contribute to
renewed interest in cooperative learning as a core aspect of teacher training and school
Author Manuscript

culture that can support positive academic, social, and behavioral outcomes simultaneously.

Acknowledgments
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism provided financial support this project (R34AA024275-0;
PI: M. J. Van Ryzin). The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
necessarily represent the official views of NIAAA or the National Institutes of Health.

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 11

References
Author Manuscript

Archer J. 2004; Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of
General Psychology. 8:291–322. DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.4.291
Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. 2010; Bullying victimization in youths and mental health
problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine. 40(5):717–729. DOI: 10.1017/
S0033291709991383 [PubMed: 19785920]
Allport, GW. The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; 1954.
Barchia K, Bussey K. 2010; The psychological impact of peer victimization: Exploring social-
cognitive mediators of depression. Journal of Adolescence. 33:615–623. DOI: 10.1016/
j.adolescence.2009.12.002 [PubMed: 20303162]
Bates, D; Maechler, M; Bolker, B; Walker, S; Christensen, RHB; Singmann, H. Linear mixed-effects
models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.0–5. 2013. Available at https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
Bierman, KL. Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. Guilford Press;
2004.
Author Manuscript

Brechwald WA, Prinstein MJ. 2011; Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer
influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 21:166–179. DOI: 10.1111/j.
1532-7795.2010.00721.x [PubMed: 23730122]
Brown GR, Spencer KA. 2013; Steroid hormones, stress and the adolescent brain: a comparative
perspective. Neuroscience. 249:115–128. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2012.12.016 [PubMed:
23262238]
Buwalda B, Geerdink M, Vidal J, Koolhaas JM. 2011; Social behavior and social stress in adolescence:
A focus on animal models. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 35:1713–1721. DOI: 10.1016/
j.neubiorev.2010.10.004 [PubMed: 20950643]
Cheng Y, Newman IM, Qu M, Mbulo L, Chai Y, Chen Y, Shell DF. 2010; Being bullied and
psychosocial adjustment among middle school students in China. Journal of School Health.
80:193–199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00486.x [PubMed: 20433645]
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. 1983; A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior. 24:385–396. [PubMed: 6668417]
Author Manuscript

Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim TE, Sadek S. 2010; Predictors of bullying and victimization
in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly. 25:65–
83. DOI: 10.1037/a0020149
Craig W, Harel-Fisch Y, Fogel-Grinvald H, Dostaler S, Hetland J, Simons-Morton B, … Pickett W.
2009; A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries.
International Journal of Public Health. 54:216–224. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 [PubMed:
19623475]
Deutsch M. 1949; A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations. 2:129–151.
Deutsch, M. Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In: Jones, M, editor. Nebraska symposium
on motivation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press; 1962. 275–319.
Dishion TJ, Patterson GR, Stoolmiller M, Skinner ML. 1991; Family, school, and behavioral
antecedents to early adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental Psychology.
27:172–180. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.27.1.172
Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Saguy T. 2009; Commonalty and the complexity of ‘we’: Social attitudes and
social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13:3–20. DOI:
Author Manuscript

10.1177/1088868308326751 [PubMed: 19144903]

Ellis WE, Zarbatany L. 2007; Explaining friendship formation and friendship stability: The role of
children’s and friends’ aggression and victimization. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 53:79–104. DOI:
10.1353/mpq.2007.0001
Espelage DL, Holt M. 2001; Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and
psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse. 2:123–142. DOI: 10.1300/J135v02n02_08
Espelage DL, Low S, Polanin JR, Brown EC. 2015; Clinical trial of Second Step© middle-school
program: Impact on aggression & victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology.
37:52–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.007

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 12

Espelage, DL, Swearer, SM, editors. Bullying in North American schools. New York: Routledge;
2004.
Author Manuscript

Estévez E, Murgui S, Musitu G. 2009; Psychological adjustment in bullies and victims of school
violence. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 24:473–483. DOI: 10.1007/BF03178762
Evans CB, Fraser MW, Cotter KL. 2014; The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention
programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 19:532–544. DOI: 10.1016/
j.avb.2014.07.004
Fareri DS, Martin LN, Delgado MR. 2008; Reward-related processing in the human brain:
Developmental considerations. Development & Psychopathology. 20:1191–1211. DOI: 10.1017/
S0954579408000576 [PubMed: 18838038]
Ferguson CJ, Miguel CS, Kilburn JC Jr, Sanchez P. 2007; The effectiveness of school-based anti-
bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review. 32(4):401–414. DOI:
10.1177/0734016807311712
Furrer C, Skinner E. 2003; Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology. 95:148–162. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148
Gest SD, Osgood DW, Feinberg ME, Bierman KL, Moody J. 2011; Strengthening prevention program
Author Manuscript

theories and evaluations: Contributions from social network analysis. Prevention Science. 12:349–
360. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-011-0229-2 [PubMed: 21728069]
Ginsburg-Block MD, Rohrbeck CA, Fantuzzo JW. 2006; A meta-analytic review of social, self-
concept, and behavioral outcomes of peer-assisted learning. Journal of Educational Psychology.
98:732–749. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.732
Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. 1998; The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A pilot study on
the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 7:125–130. DOI:
10.1007/s007870050057 [PubMed: 9826298]
Hampel P, Petermann F. 2006; Perceived stress, coping, and adjustment in adolescents. Journal of
Adolescent Health. 38:409–415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.02.014 [PubMed: 16549302]
Hodges EVE, Malone MJ, Perry DG. 1997; Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants
of victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology. 33:1032–1039. DOI:
10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.1032 [PubMed: 9383625]
Hodges EVE, Perry DG. 1999; Personal and interpersonal antecedents and consequences of
Author Manuscript

victimization by peers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 76:677–685. DOI:

10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.677 [PubMed: 10234851]
Hong JS, Espelage DL. 2012; A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An
ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 17:311–322. DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.
2012.03.003
Hubbard JA, McAuliffe MD, Morrow MT, Romano LJ. 2010; Reactive and proactive aggression in
childhood and adolescence: Precursors, outcomes, processes, experiences, and measurement.
Journal of Personality. 78:95–118. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00610.x [PubMed: 20433614]
Jaccard, J, Turrisi, R. Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage; 2003.
Johnson, DW, Johnson, R. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction
Book Company; 1989.
Johnson DW, Johnson R. 2005; New developments in social interdependence theory. Psychology
Monographs. 131:285–358. DOI: 10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358
Johnson, DW, Johnson, R, Holubec, E. Cooperation in the classroom. 9. Edina, MN: Interaction Book
Company; 2013.
Author Manuscript

Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Maruyama G. 1983; Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among
heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the
research. Review of Educational Research. 53:5–54. DOI: 10.3102/00346543053001005
Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Roseth CJ, Shin TS. 2014; The relationship between motivation and
achievement in interdependent situations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 44:622–633.
DOI: 10.1111/jasp.12280
Juvonen J, Wang Y, Espinoza G. 2011; Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance
across middle school grades. The Journal of Early Adolescence. 31:152–173. DOI:
10.1177/0272431610379415

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 13

Kendrick K, Jutengren G, Stattin H. 2012; The protective role of supportive friends against bullying
perpetration and victimization. Journal of Adolescence. 35:1069–1080. DOI: 10.1016/
Author Manuscript

j.adolescence.2012.02.014 [PubMed: 22464910]

Krol K, Sleegers P, Veenman S, Voeten M. 2008; Creating cooperative classrooms: Effects of a two-
year staff development program. Educational Studies. 34:343–360. DOI:
10.1080/03055690802257101
Martinelli V, Brondino N, Rossi S, Panigati R, Magnani R, Cappucciati M, … Politi P. 2011; Bullying
behaviours among students in Pavia, Italy: Prevalence and association with stress and cannabis
use. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences. 20:339–343. DOI: 10.1017/S2045796011000461
[PubMed: 22201211]
Merrell KW, Gueldner BA, Ross SW, Isava DM. 2008; How effective are school bullying intervention
programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly. 23:26–42.
DOI: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26
Mikami AY, Boucher MA, Humphreys K. 2005; Prevention of peer rejection through a classroom-level
intervention in middle school. Journal of Primary Prevention. 26:5–23. DOI: 10.1007/
s10935-004-0988-7 [PubMed: 15976927]
Author Manuscript

Miller GE, Chen E, Parker KJ. 2011; Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the
chronic diseases of aging: moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms.
Psychological Bulletin. 137:959–997. DOI: 10.1037/a0024768 [PubMed: 21787044]
Muris P, Meesters C, van den Berg F. 2003; The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ).
European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 12(1):1–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-003-0298-2
Olweus, D. Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell; 1993.
Olweus D, Limber SP. 2010; Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying
Prevention Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 80:124–134. DOI: 10.1111/j.
1939-0025.2010.01015.x [PubMed: 20397997]
Pervanidou P, Chrousos GP. 2012; Metabolic consequences of stress during childhood and
adolescence. Metabolism. 61:611–619. DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2011.10.005 [PubMed: 22146091]
Pettigrew TF. 1998; Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology. 49:65–85. DOI:
10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, TF, Tropp, LR. Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In:
Author Manuscript

Oskamp, S, editor. Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000. 93–114.
Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR. 2008; How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of
three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology. 38:922–934. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.504
Piccinelli M, Wilkinson G. 2000; Gender differences in depression. The British Journal of Psychiatry.
177:486–492. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.177.6.486 [PubMed: 11102321]
Prencipe A, Kesek A, Cohen J, Lamm C, Lewis MD, Zelazo PD. 2011; Development of hot and cool
executive function during the transition to adolescence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.
108:621–637. DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2010.09.008 [PubMed: 21044790]
Robers, S, Kemp, J, Truman, J. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; 2013. (NCES 2013-036/NCJ
241446)
Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. 2008; Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer
relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures.
Author Manuscript

Psychological Bulletin. 134:223–246. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223 [PubMed: 18298270]

Rueger SY, Malecki CK, Demaray MK. 2011; Stability of peer victimization in early adolescence:
Effects of timing and duration. Journal of School Psychology. 49:443–464. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsp.
2011.04.005 [PubMed: 21724000]
Russell ST, Ryan C, Toomey RB, Diaz RM, Sanchez J. 2011; Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
adolescent school victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of
School Health. 81:223–230. DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00583.x [PubMed: 21517860]

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 14

Salmivalli C, Lappalainen M, Lagerspetz KM. 1998; Stability and change of behavior in connection
with bullying in schools: A two-year follow-up. Aggressive Behavior. 24:205–218. DOI: 10.1002/
Author Manuscript

(SICI)1098-2337
Sebastian C, Viding E, Williams KD, Blakemore SJ. 2010; Social brain development and the affective
consequences of ostracism in adolescence. Brain and Cognition. 72:134–145. DOI: 10.1016/
j.bandc.2009.06.008 [PubMed: 19628323]
Skinner EA, Belmont MJ. 1993; Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior
and student engagement across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology. 85:571–581.
DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
Steinberg L, Morris AS. 2001; Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology. 52:83–110.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83
Stroud LR, Foster E, Papandonatos GD, Handwerger K, Granger DA, Kivlighan KT, Niaura R. 2009;
Stress response and the adolescent transition: Performance versus peer rejection stressors.
Development and Psychopathology. 21:47–68. DOI: 10.1017/S0954579409000042 [PubMed:
19144222]
Sullivan TN, Farrell AD, Kliewer W. 2006; Peer victimization in early adolescence: Association
Author Manuscript

between physical and relational victimization and drug use, aggression, and delinquent behaviors
among urban middle school students. Development and Psychopathology. 18:119–137. DOI:
10.1017/S095457940606007X [PubMed: 16478555]
Thijs J, Verkuyten M. 2008; Peer victimization and academic achievement in a multiethnic sample:
The role of perceived academic self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology. 100:754–764.
DOI: 10.1037/a0013155
Ttofi, MM, Farrington, DP, Baldry, CA. Effectiveness of programs to reduce school bullying: a
systematic review. Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention; 2008.
Tucker CM, Zayco RA, Herman KC, Reinke WM, Trujillo M, Carraway K, … Ivery PD. 2002;
Teacher and child variables as predictors of academic engagement among low-income African
American children. Psychology in the Schools. 39:477–488. DOI: 10.1002/pits.10038
Tynes BM, Giang MT, Williams DR, Thompson GN. 2008; Online racial discrimination and
psychological adjustment among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 43:565–569. DOI:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.08.021 [PubMed: 19027644]
Van Roy B, Veenstra M, Clench-Aas J. 2008; Construct validity of the five–factor Strengths and
Author Manuscript

Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in pre-, early, and late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry. 49:1304–1312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01942.x [PubMed: 19120709]
Van Ryzin MJ, Roseth CJ. Enlisting peer cooperation in the service of alcohol use prevention in
middle school. Child Development.
Veenman S, van Benthum N, Bootsma D, van Dieren J, van der Kemp N. 2002; Cooperative learning
and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 18:87–103. DOI: 10.1016/
S0742-051X(01)00052-X
Veenstra R, Lindenberg S, Zijlstra BJH, De Winter AF, Verhulst FC, Ormel J. 2007; The dyadic nature
of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual perspective theory. Child Development. 78:1843–
1854. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x [PubMed: 17988325]
World Health Organization. Risk behaviours: Being bullied and bullying others. In: Currie, C,
Zanaotti, C, Morgan, A, Currie, D, de Looze, M, Roberts, C. , et al., editors. Social determinants
of health and well-being among young people. Health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC)
study: International report from the 2009/2010 survey. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for
Author Manuscript

Europe; 2012. 191–200.

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
CONSORT diagram.
Author Manuscript

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
Interaction effects.
Author Manuscript

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1

Descriptive data by school

School Intervention N % female % White % Special Ed % FRPLa

1 Yes 211 48.8 74.4 13.3 53
2 Yes 47 55.3 78.7 12.8 66
Van Ryzin and Roseth

3 Yes 94 39.4 62.8 n/a 62

4 No 80 50.0 92.5 26.3 65
5 Yes 89 47.2 85.4 18.0 72
6 Yes 93 46.2 90.3 18.3 71
7 No 44 45.5 93.2 18.2 33
8 Yes 70 51.4 80.0 12.9 57
9 No 63 42.6 84.1 19.0 45
10 Yes 64 31.3 71.9 4.7 95
11 No 144 47.2 66.7 16.7 61
12 No 170 54.1 48.8 11.8 84
13 No 158 50.6 89.9 11.4 66
14 No 43 48.8 88.4 16.3 39
15 No 90 53.3 82.2 15.6 46

a
State records.

Note. One school did not provide Special Ed status.

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

Page 17
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2

Correlations and descriptive data

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Victimization (baseline) —
2. Victimization (follow-up) .60*** —
Van Ryzin and Roseth

3. Perceived stress (baseline) .42*** .36*** —

4. Perceived stress (follow-up) .29*** .44*** .58*** —

5. Emotional problems (baseline) .36*** .28*** .58*** .45*** —

6. Emotional problems (follow-up) .24*** .35*** .48*** .63*** .59*** —

7. Bullying (baseline) .22*** .16*** .14*** .04 .06* .06* —

8. Bullying (follow-up) .14*** .26*** .11*** .16*** .03 .14*** .43*** —

9. Relatedness (baseline) −.43*** −.35*** −.51*** −.36*** −.39*** −.30*** −.17*** −.07* —

10. Relatedness (follow-up) −.35*** −.45*** −.42*** −.55*** −.35*** −.44*** −.07* −.16*** .50*** —

11. Engagement (baseline) −.12*** −.05 −.18*** −.11*** .01 .05 −.29*** −.23*** .24*** .14*** —

12. Sex −.01 .05 .22*** .22*** .29*** .33*** −.06** −.05 −.05* −.11*** .14*** —

N 1452 1323 1449 1323 1456 1325 1453 1324 1447 1309 1455 1460
M .99 1.04 1.97 2.03 1.79 1.78 .26 .30 3.07 2.99 3.38 .48
SD 1.23 1.27 .86 .88 .53 .56 .50 .53 .68 .74 .60 -

*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

***
p < .001.
Page 18
 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 19

Table 3

Intervention effects at follow-up

Author Manuscript

Model #1: Bullying (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size
Level 1
Bullying (baseline) .42 (.03) p < .001 .15
Engagement (baseline) −.15 (.03) n/a -
Sex −.01 (.03) ns -
Level 2
Intervention condition −.37 (.16) n/a -
Intervention*Engagement (baseline) .09 (.04) p < .05 .37

Model #2: Victimization (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size
Author Manuscript

Level 1
Victimization (baseline) .63 (.02) p < .001 .36
Engagement (baseline) −.10 (.07) n/a -
Sex .12 (.06) p < .05 -
Level 2
Intervention condition −.76 (.33) n/a -
Intervention*Engagement (baseline) .21 (.09) p < .05 .69

Model #3: Perceived stress (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size

Level 1
Author Manuscript

Perceived stress (baseline) .56 (.02) p < .001 .31

Engagement (baseline) −.15 (.05) n/a -
Sex .18 (.04) p < .001 .01
Level 2
Intervention condition −.80 (.23) n/a -
Intervention*Engagement (baseline) .21 (.07) p < .01 > .99

Model #4: Emotional problems (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size

Level 1
Emotional Problems (baseline) .56 (.02) p < .001 .30
Sex .20 (.03) p < .001 .04
Author Manuscript

Level 2
Intervention condition −.05 (.03) p < .05 .55

Model #5: Relatedness (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.

 Van Ryzin and Roseth Page 20

Model #1: Bullying (follow-up)

Predictor B (SE) Sig Effect size
Author Manuscript

Level 1
Relatedness (baseline) .54 (.03) p < .001 .24
Sex −.13 (.04) p < .001 .01
Level 2
Intervention condition .10 (.04) p < .05 .43
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

J Educ Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2019 November 01.