Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /ch i ldyouth

An investigation into the efficiency of empathy training program on preventingbullying in primary schools

Mustafa Şahin ⁎Karadeniz Technical University, Fatih Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Science, 61335 Söğütlü-Trabzon, Turkey

⁎ Tel.: +90 462 3777074; fax: +90 462 2487344.E-mail address: mustafa61@ktu.edu.tr.

0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Alldoi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.013

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 25 November 2011Received in revised form 20 March 2012Accepted 23 March 2012Available online 30 March 2012

Keywords:Empathy trainingBullyingPrimary school

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of empathy training as an intervention programon bullying exercised by six graders in primary schools. The study, carried out as a true experimental design,used two experiment groups and two control groups. The subjects were 38 students exercising bullying. Thestudy used Child Form of Bully and Victim Determination Scale and Empathy Index for Children as datagathering tools. As data analysis tool, repeated measures of ANOVA was used to analyze time andintervention effects of empathetic skills and bullying behaviors of the participants. The study found thatbullying behaviors of the participants in the experiment group decreased significantly when compared to thesubjects in the control group. The study also found that the levels of emphatic skills of the participants in theexperiment group increased significantly compared to the participants in the control group.

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the present study, the effectiveness of empathy training as anintervention program on bullying behaviors exercised by six gradersin primary schools was investigated. The task was accomplished byusing two experiment groups and two control groups in the form of atrue experimental design. Much of literature on empathy amongchildren and adolescents dwells on behavioral outputs of empathy. Insome of these studies, participants' levels of empathy reveal a positiveand supporting role on pro-social behaviors and social abilities (Barr& Higgins-D'Alessandro, 2007; Heran, 2005). Still some others show anegative relationship between bullying, cyber bullying and violentbehaviors (Ang & Goh, 2010; Munoz, Qualter, & Padgett, 2011;Nguyen, Clark, & Belgrave, 2011; Yeo, Ang, Loh, Fu, & Karre, 2011) anddisruptive behaviors and crime-involvement (De Kemp, Overbeek, DeWied, Engels & Scholte, 2007; De Wied, Goudena, & Matthys, 2005;Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007) and antisocial aptitudes (Schaffer, Clark, &Jeglic, 2009). Given the positive role of empathy on pro-social andother positive behaviors, researchers have also conducted manyexperimental studies on how to improve empathy among childrenand adolescents (Eslea & Smith, 1994; Heran, 2005; Kalliopuska &Ruokonen, 1993; O'Moore & Minton, 2005; Pecukonis, 1990). In thesestudies, it is reported that empathy training increase bullyingbehaviors and improve empathetic and social abilities. However, wecan say that these experimental studies, both in number and inquality, are not sufficient and they do not cover the updated data.

rights reserved.

Therefore, this experimental study intends to deal with the relation-ship between empathy training and decreasing bullying behaviorsamong school-children using some very updated data.

1.1. Bullying

Peer bullying, a subclass of aggressive behavior, is accepted as auniversal concept although its definition may vary from one culture toanother. Peer bullying is a problem especially in childhood, at thebeginnings of puberty period and at school age. School bullying can bedefined as senior and physically-well-built students' beating, harassing,and maltreating the ones weaker than them (Olweus, 1993). Swedishresearcher Heinemann came up with the first definition of bullyingattitudes as “mobbing” and took it as a sudden group violence againstan individual (Dölek, 2001). But, much more longitudinal studies werelaunched by Dan Olweus in Scadinavian countries in 1970s (Eslea &Smith, 1994; O'Moore &Minton, 2005). Olweus (1994a, 1994b) definedpeer bullying as the violence observed among peer groups, with nointention of provocation, willingly and deliberately made by thephysically or psychologically stronger ones against others. He catego-rized peer bullying in two sections: direct and indirect aggressiveness.Direct attacks are insulting and humiliating actionswhich are physicallyor verbally carried out while indirect attacks are done by causingdamage against victim's social status and sense of belonging. Thesedefinitions, Mynard and Joseph (2000) added the dimension of causingdamage to personal belongings. The dimension of damaging personalbelongings includes destroying and stealing the victim's belongings. Inanother study, peer bullying is undertaken as an attack against victim'sracial origin, cultural values and personality (Verkuynen & Thijs, 1999).If the cultural and ethnic origins of victims are subjected to bullying, this

1326 M. Şahin / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

is defined as “Group Peer Bullying”, if the personal characteristics ofvictims are subjected to bullying; this is called as “Personal PeerBullying”.

1.2. Empathy

The term empathy has been defined in various ways throughoutthe history of science. According to some researchers, empathy is abasic cognitive function or the ability to be aware of the other'sthoughts and feelings (Barnett, 1990; Borke, 1971). Some othersdefine empathy as an affective reaction or ability to understand theother's feelings (Bernadett-Shapiro, Efrensaft, & Shapiro, 1996;Feshbach & Roe, 1968; Merrabian & Epstein, 1972). Still some othersuse both cognitive and affective aspects together successfully (Davis& Franzoi, 1991; Eisenberg & Strayer, 1990; Hoffman, 1982). Basedupon the variety in definitions and a close research into literature, itcan be said that the definition of the term “empathy” has threeaspects. The first, which was widely used until the end of 1950s, is acognitive one. In the 1960s, researchers emphasized another aspect ofempathy: it was an affective function or reaction. Various studieshave demonstrated that empathic ability can be used to inhibit ordecrease aggressive and bullying behaviors (Kaukiainen et al., 1999;Miller & Eisenberg, 1988; Richardson, Hommock, Smith, Gardner, &Manuel, 1994).

1.3. Empathy training

Empathy training has been an ongoing topic of discussion and anarea of research since the 1960s. Whether the skill of empathicawareness is a learned skill or an innate one is a matter of discussion.According to Tanrıdağ (1992), empathy as an ability cannot be taught;however, the emphatic potential, which comes from birth, can bedeveloped through training. Research has divided the techniques usedin empathy training into four major categories: didactic, experiential,role-playing and modeling (Dalton, Sundbland, & Hylbert, 1973; Fine &Therrien, 1977; Gladstein & Feldstein, 1989; Greenberg & Goldman,1988). Additionally, Eisenberg (1982) emphasized the important rolesof social promotions, taking initiations, affective support from the socialenvironment, reinforcement and ethical judgments in developingempathic attitudes among children.

1.4. Thesis statement

Based upon the suggestion made by recent research studies citedabove that after taking empathy training children performing bullyingbehaviors can be equipped with the ability to establish and maintainhealthy relationships with others, this study aimed to determine theeffectiveness of empathy training as an intervention program onbullying behaviors exercised by six graders in primary schools. Thestudy also targeted to improve the emphatic ability inherent in thenature of bullying children and help them turn into group existencehealthily.

2. Method

The study used a true experimental design, a pretest for theexperimental and control groups, post-test and a follow-up model.

2.1. Sampling

2.1.1. Sampling was carried out in two stagesThe first stage, after the administration of The Scale of Identifying

Bully and Victim/Child Form on 1476 six graders in primary schools inTrabzon in the spring term of the 2009–2010 year, 82 students tendedto exhibit bullying behaviors. Upon examining the points the bullystudents got from the scales, the ones showing extreme differentiation

were excluded. Thus, 61 students were identified as subjects. In thesecond stage, 38 of these 61 students were included in the study with arandom selection.

2.2. Data gathering instruments

2.2.1. The scale of identifying bullying/child formThe Scale of Identifying Bullying/ Child Formwas developed by Pişkin

and Ayas (2007). This scale included 37 items and 5 factors (physical,verbal, isolation, rumor and damaging belongings) in order to identifybullying. For the scale to be valid the researcher first consulted to anexpert and then employed a confirming factor analysis. After the firstlevel confirmatory factor analysis, it was found that adaptation indiceswere calculated as RMSEA=0.046, GFI=O.89, AGFI=0.88, CFI=0.96,NFI=0.95 and NNFI=0.96. After the second level confirmatory factoranalysis, adaptation indiceswere found to beRMSEA=0.049, GFI=O.87,AGFI=0.86, CFI=0.96, NFI=0.95 and NNFI=0.96. Cronbach alphainternal consistency coefficient of Bully Scale was calculated for overallscale as 0.87; for “physical bullying” subscale as 0.71; for “verbal bullying”subscale as 0.68; for “isolation” subscale as 0.60; for “rumor” subscale as0.64 and for “damaging belongings” subscale as 0.70. The study used thetotal scores gathered by the scale.

2.2.2. The empathy index for childrenThis scale was developed by Bryant in 1982 and translated into

Turkish by Yılmaz-Yüksel in 2003. In order to check the validity of thescale, a factor analysis and the principal component analysis wereperformed to find a one-factor solution. Scale consisted 20 items witha factor load of 245 or over. The reliability and coefficient of internalconsistency of empathy scale for children were analyzed test-repeated test technique. The level of internal consistency of theScale Cronbach Alpha Coefficient was calculated as .70. The level ofthe stability of the Scale was measured using Pearson momentcorrelation coefficient (PMCC) and found to be r=.69 (pb .001).

2.3. Data gathering process

Before starting to collect the required data, the schools constitutingthe sampling group were visited to take their consent to get theminvolved in the study. Then, the Scale of Identifying Bully\Child Formdevised by Pişkin and Ayas (2007) was applied on 1476 six gradersfrom all primary schools in the center of Trabzon. The applicationprocess was carried out by the researcher and the teachers in theseschools. Only the students who were willing to participate in the studywere given the questionnaire. Then, the students were informed ofhow to fill in the form. After having been filled, the forms were put inenvelopes with the names of the schools. After analyzing the pointseach students got from the Scale of Identifying Bully/Child Form, 82students were determined to exercise bullying behaviors on theirpeers. Then, these students were given the Empathy Index for Childrendevised by Yılmaz-Yüksel (2003). Upon examining the points thesestudents got from upon examining the points the bully students gotfrom the Scale of Identifying Bully/Child Form and the Empathy Indexfor Children, the ones showing extreme differentiation were excluded.Of 61 students whose scores were similar, 38 volunteer students wereincluded in the study. To work with them efficiently, with a randomselection the researcher got the students into four groups, two of 9students and the other two of 10. The groups of 9 students werelabeled as A and B groups, and put in another box. Again with a randomselection, two groups of nine students were labeled as experimentalgroup (B) and control group (A). Using the same method, the othertwo groups of ten students were labeled as experimental group (C) andcontrol group (D). The experimental groups were given the empathytraining program devised by the researcher himself in eleven sessionsof 75-minute. Without being informed of the concept of the controlgroup and the content of the study, the control groups were involved in

Table 2The sessions in the empathy training program.

Week 1—Meeting, Getting to know about Empathy and Empathetic Skills 75 minSlogan: Be kind, loving and forgiving to each other to lead a happy life. //

Week 2—Teaching Awareness of Emotional Sensitivity-ISlogan: Living without the awareness of feelings is like driving a car with

its brakes on.//

Week 3—Teaching Awareness of Emotional Sensitivity-II //Slogan: One who claims know everything about the universe but nothing

about himself actually knows nothing.//

Week 4—Perceptional Differentiation ISlogan: We can look at the same thing but view it differently. //

Week 5—Perceptional Differentiation IISlogan: The ear hears; but the brain gives the meaning. //

Week 6—Getting an Internal ViewpointSlogan: What you say is how the others understand it. //

Week 7—Empathetic Atmosphere and Flow of Empathetic InformationSlogan: Eyes are the mirrors of communication. //

Week 8—Developing the Ability of Empathetic ListeningSlogan: If you value humans, regard them as they are. //

Week 9—Developing the Ability of Empathetic Response-ISlogan: To understand humans is difficult but is a prerequisite to be a

human being.//

Week 10—Developing the Ability of Empathetic Response-II //Slogan: Ever human being is a world apart and you can't know about it

without entering.//

Week 11—Ending Group ExistenceSlogan: Tolerance is the required vitamin for a successful communication.

1327M. Şahin / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

30-minute discussion sessions within the period of eleven weeks toexchange ideas on daily issues. After the training program, both theexperimental group and the control group were given the Scale ofIdentifying Bully/ Child Form and the Empathy Index for Children. Thisprocess was repeated 60 days later for the follow-up study. Thisresearch study started on February 25, 2010 with the implementationof scaling. The empathy training program was conducted from March10 to May 19 2010. The follow-up study was carried out on July 202010 (Table 1).

2.4. Techniques used for empathy training

Focusing on developing bully students' sensitive and cognitiveabilities including empathic reactions, the study used cognitivefeatures like recognizing, evaluating and naming feelings required inan empathic process. Didactic, experimental, role playing andmodeling techniques were used in the training program. Additionally,social promotion, giving responsibility, sensitive support and hometasks were used to enrich the program. To help them reconstruct theirsensitive and cognitive perspectives, the study devised an activity inwhich bully students were asked to create a slogan in compliancewith the subject of each training session. The slogans are presented inTable 2.

2.5. Content of the empathy training program

The empathy training program was prepared based upon theresearch carried out byÖzbay and Şahin (2004) on emphatic atmospherein psychological counseling and the acquisition of emphatic skills,making use of the theoretical information from the model developedby Feshbach (1983) and its experimental applications.

For the first week, an activity in which students, sitting in a “U”shape with their name tags on, were asked to introduce themselves tothe rest of the participants. They were also asked to tell what theirnames meant to them. In this activity, a psychodrama technique wasused in combination with the “shadow game” devised by Altınay(2003). Then, the researchers delivered a short lecture on empathy andempathic skills using didactic approach. The second session startedwitha piece of information given by the researcher on emotion and states ofemotion. Didactic, demonstration and question-answer techniqueswere used. With the help of pictures, the participants were taughtvarious emotional states like happiness, anger, sadness, fear, courage,and hatred. Then, they were asked to name sample real life experiencestold by the researcher with these emotional states. This reflected theirawareness of how they and others felt when they experienced differentevents in their surroundings. Furthermore, this session uncovered andmade the participants aware of which state(s) of emotion was/weredominant in their daily lives. Lastly, the participants were given a hometask to pick up pictures from the media which fit and do not fit theirstates of emotion. In the third session, based on the assessment of thehome tasks given in the previous session, the participants were helpedto develop an insight. Then, they watched a sketch showing variousstates of emotion. Next, they were asked to compare the states ofemotion described in the sketch and those of theirs. This provided theparticipants with the opportunity to see themselves in the mirror.

Table 1Groups and experimental design.

Groups Pre-test Activity

Experimental groupN=9 (B)N=10 (C)

The Scale of Identifying Bully andVictim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

Eleven 75-ninute sessionsempathy training program

Control groupN=9 (A)N=10 (D)

The Scale of Identifying Bully andVictim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

30-minute sessions for 11to exchange ideas on daily

Finally, the students were asked to create a similar sketches based upontheir real life experiences. The purpose herewas tomake them aware oftheir feelings and emotions. As home task, they were asked to animatethe last state of emotion they experienced in front of a mirror and seetheir facial expressions and note them. In session fourth, the groupleader gave a lecture on perception, and factors affecting perception.Reflecting three pictures with illusions on the wall and asking them toview them for ten seconds, he then asked the participants to describewhat they saw, what emotion the pictures included, and what theythought about the painters. Following this, each participant shared hiswritings with the rest of the group. The purpose was to teach theparticipants that it might be possible for them to view the same thingdifferently. As home task, the participants were asked to compare theirperceptions and their parents' perceptions related to the same event(such as playing games, studying, watching TV etc.)

In the first part of the fifth session, the assessment of the hometask given in the fourth session was made. Then, the participantslistened to three different pieces of music (rhythmic, emotional andhard rock) and were asked about what they felt about the pieces andwhat they thought about the composers. Then they shared their ideaswith the other members of the group. This reflected again that theymight view the same thing differently. As home task, they were askedto observe perceptual differentiation between themselves and theirfriends when applying a rule during a play.

The sixth session started with the evaluation of the previoussession. It went on with a social—promotion as an example due totheir success in doing their home projects. The group leader then gavea lecture on the awareness of the desires, needs, wants, feelings and

Post-test Follow-up

for The Scale of Identifying Bullyand Victim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

The Scale of Identifying Bully andVictim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

weekissues

The Scale of Identifying Bully andVictim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

The Scale of Identifying Bully andVictim/Child FormThe Empathy Index for Children

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

70,00

Experimental 57.95 33.42 35.32

Control 58.42 55.84 53.68

Pretest Posttest Follow-up

Fig. 1. Time and intervention interaction on bullying behaviors.

0,00

5,00

10,00

15,00

20,00

25,00

Experimental 11.89 19.89 19.11

Control 11.89 12.32 12.95

Pretest Posttest Follow -up

Fig. 2. Time and intervention interaction on empathetic skills.

1328 M. Şahin / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

thoughts of the other self in mutual relationships. Later on, the groupmembers read and analyzed a poem with a focus on its writer, hisfeelings, the way he revealed his feeling, both orally and using bodylanguage. This session aimed in the creation of the awareness thateach person might come up with a different idea or feeling as regardsthe same issue. As home project, the members were asked to writeabout how they perceived their parents warnings or advice. In theseventh session, as usual, the evaluation of the previous session wasmade and the home projects were assessed. The group leaderinformed the members of the process of flow of empathic informationthrough discussion and demonstration. Then, the group members, ingroups of two, were asked to discuss a topic they themselvesdetermined behind a curtain and face to face. Next, they talkedabout their partners' way of communication and discussion. By this,the members gave some important feedback as to in what way andcondition they were able to understand the others better. This sessionrevealed that the group members were more successful in face to facecommunication. As home assignments, they were asked to writeabout how they perceived the behaviors and actions in a classroomenvironment by their most problematic friends.

The previous session and home projects were assessed in the firstpart of the eighth session. The students were given a lecture on thedifference between hearing and listening. The group members, ingroups of two, were asked to describe a picture behind a curtain andthrough face to face communication and to redraw the picture basedupon their partner's descriptions. The outcome of this session wasthat the members performed well when the listened to their partnersthrough face to face communication when compared to hearing thembehind a curtain.

The ninth and tenth sessions, summarizing what was done in theprevious session, the group leader delivered a short seminar on thesteps of empathic response. Then, the members watched a short filmabout levels of empathic response. After this, they got in groups oftwo. When one of the members narrated a daily experience, the otherwas asked the give a feedback to his partners expression in terms ofcontent and feelings. This was repeated until each member of thegroup appeared on the stage. The result was that each group membersaid, by realizing the content and feeling in his partner's expression,they were able to understand others' feelings better.

In the final session, the leader made an evaluation of each of theprevious sessions and told the members that the study was about tofinish. The group members were asked to evaluate the study as awhole. Then, they filled the scales given to them by the leader. Uponfixing a time the follow up study, they left with positive feelings andbest wishes.

2.6. Data analysis

Repeated measures ANOVA is conducted to analyze time andintervention effects of empathy skills and bullying behaviors ofchildren under investigation. With this method three measurementpoints (pretest, posttest, and follow-up) and intervention (experi-mental and control groups) are treated as independent variable,empathy skills and bullying behaviors as dependent variables. Datawere screened for the assumptions of multivariate analysis and bothdata sets were met these assumptions. All analyses are carried out at.05 significant level (Fig. 1).

3. Results

Investigation of the effect of empathy training on bullyingbehaviors of school children carried out with repeated measureANOVA. Multivariate analysis yielded significant interaction effect,F(2/35)=168.60, (Wilks' lambda .09), pb .001, as well as main effectof time of measurement, F(2/35)=226.48, (Wilks' lambda .07),pb .001. As given in Fig. 2, intervention group made significant

decrease on bullying behaviors as a result of empathy training, andthe magnitude of change continued on follow-up measures.

Repeated measure ANOVA is performed to test the time andintervention effects on empathy and bullying behaviors. Empathytraining as the intervention program in this study revealed significanteffect on students' empathic behaviors at the end of the interventionand on follow-up, F(2/35)=333.64, (Wilks' Lambda .05), pb .001. Asseen in Table 3, intervention group as compared to control group tendto be more empathetic on post intervention and follow-up (Table 4).

4. Discussion and suggestions

In this study, it was observed that applied emphatic educationprogram was effective on bullying behaviors of primary 6th gradestudents. According to the results of statistical analysis, empathytraining program was effective on decreasing bullying behaviors ofexperimental group students, whereas no change was observed incontrol group students on whom empathy training program was notapplied. In addition, in follow-up study, which was carried out60 days from the actual application, effects of emphatic training inexperimental group were still being observed. This study also foundthat empathy education program made positive impact on develop-ing empathic skills of bully students. However, no change in controlgroup was observed as empathy education program was not appliedto students of this group. Effects of empathy training program ondeveloping empathic skills of children in experimental group wereobserved 60 day later from actual application.

Much of literature on empathy among children and adolescentsdwells on behavioral outputs of empathy. In some of these studies,participants' levels of empathy reveal a positive and supporting role onpro-social behaviors and social abilities (Barr & Higgins-D'Alessandro,2007; Heran, 2005). Still some others show a negative relationshipbetween bullying, cyber bullying and violent behaviors (Ang & Goh,

Table 3Repeated measure ANOVA results on bullying behaviors.

Effect Wilks' lambda F df p η2

Time .07 226.48 2/35 .001 .93Time∗ intervention .09 168.60 2/35 .001 .91

1329M. Şahin / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

2010; Munoz et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2011; Stravrinides et al., 2010;Yeo et al., 2011) and disruptive behaviors and crime-involvement (DeKemp et al., 2007; DeWied et al., 2005; Jolliffe & Farrington, 2007 ) andantisocial aptitudes (Schaffer et al., 2009).

In addition to these studies, there are some others dealing withlevels of empathy among school children. Robert and Strayer (2004)investigated the relation between empathy levels of school agechildren and their anger levels and found out that students with highemphatic skills acquired low anger, physical and verbal violencelevels and they carried on to do more pro-social behaviors. They alsoinvestigated the empathic development of five year olds and itsrelationship with anger and aggressive behavior. They concluded thatchildren who developed emphatic skills well were less angry, lessaggressive; they have fewer problems with sharing toys and wereable to develop stronger social relationships than other children.Chisholm and Strayer (1995) found a positive relationship betweenanger, empathic and emotional expressions of children and theirparents' emotional expressions and behaviors. Pecukonis (1990)carried out a study on 24 adolescent girls, who were diagnosed asaggressive, to examine the effect of empathy education program, andobserved a statistically significant change between pre-test and post-test. Şahin (2007) found that empathy training developed empathicthinking skills and increased self esteem. Yılmaz-Yüksel (2003)examined the effects of empathy training on empathic skills of 4thgraders and determined that levels of empathic skills of children inexperimental group were significantly higher than those in thecontrol group. Otfinowski (2000) examined the effects of empathyeducation on peer appreciation (acceptance) among 3rd graders. As aresult of empathic education and empathic reaction activities, asignificant increase in levels of children's empathy skills wasobserved. Kalliopuska and Ruokonen (1993) used music in investi-gating effects of empathy education on developing empathic skills ofchildren. In this experimental study, they studied 32 pre-schoolchildren and observed significant high empathic skill developmentsin experimental group children compared to children in controlgroup. These results illustrated that empathy education was highlyeffective on developing empathic skills of children. Thus, it can be saidthat findings of this study were supported by the related literature.This result illustrated that empathic education program had effects onthe levels of empathic skills of children. In this sense, the findings ofthis study which illustrated the positive effects of empathy educationon decreasing bullying, was supported by other studies carried out inthe field.

In these studies, it is reported that empathy training increase bullyingbehaviors and improve empathetic and social abilities. However, we cansay that these experimental studies, both in number and in quality, arenot sufficient and they do not cover the updated data. Therefore, thisexperimental study intends to deal with the relationship betweenempathy training and decreasing bullying behaviors among school-children using some very updated data. Also, it is suggested that psycho-social dimension of empathy training should be taken into account toprevent bullying in schools. Therefore, schools activities to prevent

Table 4Repeated measure ANOVA results on empathetic skills.

Effect Wilks' lambda F df p η2

Time .03 518.75 2/35 .001 .97Time∗ intervention .05 333.64 2/35 .001 .95

bullying behaviors should be carried out within the frame of schoolguidance services. In service training courses on empathy, social skills,and dealing with anger (anger management) should be designed forschool counseling teachers and classroom teachers in order to improvetheir skills and knowledge. More qualitative studies should be carriedout in this field. Detailed data could be gathered if any change inchildren's behaviors after applied intervention program is observed intheir natural settings.

5. Limitations of the study

As a result of the fact that scales were self-reported in nature, eachparticipant reflected his/her perception of personal state on the spotattitude. Participant students were informed of the study beforehand,which can be considered another limitation. Still another one wasthat the study used experiment group and control group including 19students for each, but that these groups did not cover the wholeschool population.

References

Altınay, D. (2003). Psycho-dramatic group therapy. Istanbul: System Publishing.Ang, R. P., & Goh, D. H. (2010). Cyberbullying among adolescents: The role of affective

and cognitive empathy, and gender. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,41(4), 387–397.

Barnett, M. A. (1990). Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg, & J.Strayer (Eds.), Cambridge: Cambringe University Press.

Barr, J. J., & Higgins-D'Alessandro, A. (2007). Adolescent empathy and prosocialbehavior in the multidimensional context of school culture. The Journal of GeneticPsychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 168(3), 231–250.

Bernadett-Shapiro, S., Efrensaft, D., & Shapiro, J. (1996). Father participation in childcareand the development of empathy in sons: An empirical study. Family Therapy, 23,77–93.

Borke, H. (1971). Interpersonal perception of young children: Egocentrism or empathy?Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 102–108.

Chisholm, K., & Strayer, J. (1995). Verbal and facial measures of children's emotion andempathy. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 59(2), 299–316.

Dalton, R. F., Sundbland, L. M., & Hylbert, K. W. (1973). An applications of principles ofsocial learning to training in communication of empathy. Journal of CounselingPsychology, 20(4), 378–383.

Davis, M., & Franzoi, S. (1991). Stability and change in adolescent self consciousnessand empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 25(1), 70–87.

De Kemp, R. A. T., Overbeek, G., DeWied, M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Scholte, R. H. J. (2007).Early adolescent empathy, parental support, and antisocial behavior. The Journal ofGenetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 168(1), 5–18.

DeWied, M., Goudena, P. P., & Matthys, W. (2005). Empathy in boys with disruptivebehavior disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(8), 867–880.

Dölek, N. (2001). Investigating the Bullying Behaviors Among Primary and SecondarySchool Children and the Efficiency of Bullying Prevention Programme. UnpublishedDoctora Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences.

Eisenberg, N. (1982). Social development. The child development in social context.London: Addison Publishing Company.

Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1990). Empathy and its development. : Cambridge UniversityPress.

Eslea, M., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Anti-bullying work in primary schools. Poster Presentedat the Annual Conference of the Developmental Section of the British PsychologicalSociety, University of Portsmouth, September, 1994.

Feshbach, N. D. (1983). Learning to care. : Scott, Foreman and Company.Feshbach, N. D., & Roe, K. (1968). Empathy in Six and seven year olds. Child Development,

39(1), 133–145.Fine, V. K., & Therrien, M. E. (1977). Empathy in the doctor–patient relationship: Skill

training for medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 52(9), 752–757.Gladstein, G. A., & Feldstein, J. C. (1989). Using film to increase counselor empathic

experiences. Counselor Education and Supervision, 23(2), 125–131.Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. L. (1988). Training in experiential therapy. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 696–702.Heran, W. J. (2005). The Effects of Global Empathy Training on Attachment styles, Social

Competencies and Empathy Deficits with Male Adolescent Sex Offenders in Court-Ordered Residential Treatment. Unpublished Doctora Thesis, Smith College School forSocial Work.

Hoffman, M. L. (1982). Development of prosocial motivation: Empathy and guilt. In N.Eisenberg (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Examining the relationship between Low empathyand self-reported offending. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12(2), 256–286.

Kalliopuska, M., & Ruokonen, S. (1993). A study with a follow-up of the effects of musiceducation on holistic development of empathy. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76,131–137.

1330 M. Şahin / Children and Youth Services Review 34 (2012) 1325–1330

Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Östermen, K., Salmivalli, C., Rothberg, S.,et al. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and threetypes of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 81–89.

Merrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal ofPersonality, 40(4), 525–543.

Miller, P., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive andexternalizing antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 324–344.

Munoz, L. C., Qualter, P., & Padgett, G. (2011). Empathy and bullying: Exploring theinfluence of callous-unemotional traits. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,42(2), 183–196.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer victimizationscale. Aggressive Behavior, 26(2), 169–178.

Nguyen, A. B., Clark, T. T., & Belgrave, F. Z. (2011). Empathy and drug use behaviorsamong African-American adolescents. Journal of Drug Education, 41(3), 289–308.

O'Moore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an antibullyingprogramme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior, 31(6), 609–622.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do madden. MA:Blackwell Publishers Ltd..

Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and aneffective school based intervention program. In L. Rowell Huesmann (Ed.),Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). New York: PlenumPress.

Olweus, D. (1994). Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a schoolbased intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(7),1171–1190.

Otfinowski, G. A. (2000). Effects of Empathy Training on the Peer Approval of ThirdGraders. Unpublished Doctora Thesis, University of Francisco.

Özbay, Y., & Şahin, M. (2004). Emphatic atmosphere in psychological counseling anddeveloping emphatic ability. Süleyman Demirel University, The Social SciencesReview of the Faculty of Science and Literature, 11, 137–150.

Pecukonis, V. E. (1990). A cognitive/affective empathy training program as a functionof ego development in aggressive adolescent females. Adolescence Spring, 25(97),59–76.

Pişkin, M., & Ayas, T. (2007). Developing the scale of identifying bully and victim/childform. Paper presented at the XVI. National Congress of Educational Sciences, Tokat,September, 2007.

Richardson, D., Hommock, G., Smith, S., Gardner, W., & Manuel, S. (1994). Empathy as acognitive inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 20(4), 275–289.

Robert,W., & Strayer, J. (2004). Children's anger, emotional expressiveness, and empathy:Relations with parents' empathy, emotional expressiveness and parenting practices.Social Development, 13(2), 229–254.

Şahin, M. (2007). Researching the Efficiency of Empathy Training to Prevent BullyingBehaviors in Primary Schools. Unpublished Doctora Thesis, Atatürk University,Institute of Social sciences.

Schaffer, M., Clark, S., & Jeglic, E. L. (2009). The role of empathy and parenting style inthe development of antisocial behaviors. Crime & Delinquency, 55(4), 586–599.

Stravrinides, P., Georgiou, S., & Theofanous, V. (2010). Bullying and empathy: A short-term longitudinal investigation. Educational Psychology: An International Journal ofExperimental Educational Psychology, 30(7), 793–802.

Tanrıdağ, Ş. (1992). Analysis of the Levels of Empathic Attitude and Ability of ThoseWorking in Mental Public Health Services Based on Different Variables. UnpublishedDoctora Thesis, Hacettepe University, Institute of Social Sciences.

Verkuynen, M., & Thijs, J. (1999). Peer victimization and self-esteem of ethnic minoritygroup children. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 11(3), 227–234.

Yeo, L. S., Ang, R. P., Loh, S., Fu, K. J., & Karre, J. K. (2011). The role of affective and cognitiveempathy in physical, verbal, and indirect aggression of a Singaporean sample of boys.The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 145(4), 313–330.

Yılmaz-Yüksel, A. (2003). The Effect of Empathy Training on Primary School Children'sEmphatic Ability. Unpublished Doctora Thesis, Ankara University, Institute ofEducational Sciences.