Premium
Modeling the bullying prevention program design recommendations of students from grades five to eight: a discrete choice conjoint experiment
Author(s) -
Cunningham Charles E.,
Vaillancourt Tracy,
Cunningham Lesley J.,
Chen Yvonne,
Ratcliffe Jenna
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
aggressive behavior
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.223
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 1098-2337
pISSN - 0096-140X
DOI - 10.1002/ab.20408
Subject(s) - discrete choice , psychology , human factors and ergonomics , injury prevention , poison control , suicide prevention , occupational safety and health , applied psychology , conjoint analysis , latent class model , medical education , medicine , environmental health , computer science , mathematics , statistics , pathology , machine learning , preference
We used a discrete choice conjoint experiment to model the bullying prevention recommendations of 845 students from grades 5 to 8 (aged 9–14). Students made choices between experimentally varied combinations of 14 four‐level prevention program attributes. Latent class analysis yielded three segments. The high impact segment (27.1%) recommended uniforms, mandatory recess activities, four playground supervisors, surveillance cameras, and 4‐day suspensions when students bully. The moderate impact segment (49.5%) recommended discretionary uniforms and recess activities, four playground supervisors, and 3‐day suspensions. Involvement as a bully or bully‐victim was associated with membership in a low impact segment (23.4%) that rejected uniforms and surveillance cameras. They recommended fewer anti‐bullying activities, discretionary recess activities, fewer playground supervisors, and the 2‐day suspensions. Simulations predicted most students would recommend a program maximizing student involvement combining prevention with moderate consequences. The simulated introduction of mandatory uniforms, surveillance cameras, and long suspensions reduced overall support for a comprehensive program, particularly among students involved as bullies or bully‐victims. Aggr Behav 37:521–537, 2011. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.