1. © Kidscape 2015
1
Introduction
This literature review will summarise research and findings that are relevant to the
techniques and methods used in PACS (Positive Assertive Confidence Skills). This review
accompanies the Theory of Change model and the narrative that outlines the processes and
outcomes of PACS. This review will present evidence that supports the methods used in
PACS that promote prosocial behaviour, empathy, efficacy, engagement with school and
positive relationships which reduces disengagement, aggressive and bullying behaviour.
This review is split into ‘risk factors’ and ‘protective factors’, firstly discussing the risk factors
and risks associated with the target group for PACS. Then the techniques and activities used
in PACS, the protective factors, will be discussed that ameliorate or eliminate the effects of
these risks.
PACS
PACS is aimed at young people going through the transition from primary to secondary
school; going from the security of their primary school to a secondary school with more
people, more classrooms, a reduction in supervision and where they are expected to work
and act more independently, for example; managing a timetable, interacting with more peers
and staff, being responsible for class and homework. This transition period also signifies the
beginning of adolescence which is when young people go through rapid change cognitively,
physically, emotional and socially1
. They rely more on their peers2
resulting in them
becoming more socially active away from their parents. More specifically, PACS is aimed at
this age group of young people who are disengaged from school and who exhibit aggressive
and/or bullying behaviour. The aim is to train this group of vulnerable young people in
conflict resolution, efficacy and empathy skills to avoid the many negative outcomes the
literature suggests may occur without intervention. These outcomes will now be discussed.
Risk factors:
Bullying and aggression
Bullying is discussed as a specific type of aggressive behaviour, however, there are very few
organisations collecting statistics that are representative of the UK population. Get
Connected3
, a helpline for young people aged up to 25, recently released a report claiming
that 45% of the young people that contact them have been bullied (2,250 of the 5,000 young
people that took part). This would suggest that bullying behaviour is prevalent amongst the
population of young people in the UK. Bullying is seen as a predecessor to more serious
types of aggression and crime4
, substance misuse and mental health problems5
. Bullying is
conceptualised as a specific type of aggression6
, as it is possible to be aggressive without
bullying someone7
. However, for the purpose of this review, aggression and bullying
behaviour are discussed together. This is because they are similar in their consequences;
crime, substance misuse and mental health problems.
1
Huntley & Owens, 2013; Windle et al, 2008
2
Espelage et al, 2011; Huntley & Owens, 2013; Laible et al, 2004; Mahatmya et al, 2012; Pastorelli et
al, 2001; Schunk & Meece, 2005; Wentzel, 2005; Windle et al, 2008
3
Get Connected (2015)
4
(Espelage et al, 2003; Hymel et al, 2005; Ozkan & Cifci, 2009; Pingault et al, 2013; Polanin et al,
2012; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005; Sourander, 2006; Swearer & Doll, 2001; Van der Wal, 2003;
Wilson & Lipsey, 2007)
5
Arseneault et al, 2010; Kalliotis, 2000; Lochman et al, 2006; Ttofi & Farringdon, 2008; Vreeman &
Carroll, 2007; Waasdorp et al, 2012
6
Ojala & Nesdale, 2004
7
Monks et al, 2009

2. © Kidscape 2015
2
Bullying, aggression and empathy
These behaviours are often negatively linked to empathy8
. Empathy has two components;
cognitive and affective. Cognitive empathy is appreciating others’ perspectives and
understanding their position9
. Affective empathy is internalising and experiencing others’
feelings10
. It has been suggested by research that those who exhibit aggressive and/or
bullying behaviour tend to have high levels of cognitive empathy like their peers but lack in
affective empathy11
. Therefore, the instigators of aggressive and/or bullying behaviour tend
to know that their actions will result in someone being hurt but do not wish to reduce their
suffering12
. This ‘cold cognition’ (a term referencing the lacking in affective empathy13
) tends
to reinforce the bullying14
. The ability to understand others’ perspectives increases as young
children develop into adolescence15
which makes the target age group for PACS most
appropriate; as they understand others’ perspectives more whilst exhibiting bullying
behaviour, they are likely to develop ‘cold cognition’ to hurt those that they target.
Changing aspects of bullying and aggressive behaviour
As young people develop into adolescence with a better understanding of other people’s
perspectives and expectations16
, those who display aggressive and/or bullying behaviour
tend to adapt the way they display these behaviours. Aggressive and bullying behaviour
remains stable through the transition between primary and secondary school (if a child
exhibits these behaviours in primary school, it is very likely they will continue to do so in
secondary school)17
. Rather than using more direct methods (physical aggression such as
hitting and pushing) as young children do18
, adolescents tend to steer towards more indirect
methods (relational aggression such as spreading rumours and exclusion from group) of
aggression and bullying19
. This behaviour is less obvious and unlikely to be witnessed by
staff20
; however, it is likely to be witnessed by peers21
.
Peer rejection
Rejection from peers can shape an individual’s self-esteem and this significantly contributes
to feelings of loneliness and depression22
. This rejection can have a lasting impact and
serves as a stressor which can lead to various behaviours23
. Buhs24
has proposed that
8
Aluede et al, 2008; Castillo et al, 2013; Findlay et al, 2006; Gini et al, 2007; Kaukiainen et al, 1999;
Ozkan & Cifci, 2009; Stavrinides et al, 2010
9
Gini et al, 2007
10
Stavrinides et al, 2010
11
Bandura, 2002; Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Gini, 2006; Gini et al, 2007; Hymel et al, 2005; Lovett &
Sheffield, 2006; Ozkan & Cifci, 2009; Sutton et al et al, 1999
12
Lovett & Sheffield, 2006; Stavrinides et al, 2010
13
Gini et al, 2007
14
Ozkan & Cifci, 2009
15
Burgess et al, 2006; Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Kaukiainen et al, 1999
16
Banerjee, 2002; Rutland et al, 2005
17
Piquero et al, 2012; Polanin et al, 2012; Schäfer et al, 2004
18
Burgess et al, 2006; Nipedal et al, 2010; Ojala & Nesdale, 2004; Schäfer et al,2004; Selah-
Shayovits, 2004
19
Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Lochman et al, 2006; Sutton et al, 1999; Woods & White, 2005
20
Arseneault et al, 2010; Cunningham et al, 1998
21
Duffy & Nesdale, 2008; Espelage et al, 2011; Gini et al, 2008; Hymel et al, 2005; O’Connell et al,
1999; Rigby & Johnson, 2006
22
Buhs et al, 2006; Cowie & Hutson, 2005; Prinstein & Aikins, 2004; Wentzel, 2005
23
Dodge et al, 2003
24
Buhs (2005)

3. © Kidscape 2015
3
rejected young people are a heterogeneous group: some respond to rejection by
withdrawing while others will respond aggressively. Aggressive young people will react
aggressively out of anger and frustration25
. Those who withdraw or disengage, are less likely
to participate at school and will not seek out learning or interaction with peers26
. With regards
to those who exhibit aggressive and bullying behaviour, they are not necessarily unpopular.
It has been suggested that bullying can no longer be seen as an individual acting alone,
rather it is a group process that involves numerous people who tend to hold the same
positive attitude to aggression27
. Caravita & Blasio28
have argued that although aggressive
and disruptive young people are perceived as popular, they are not necessarily liked by their
peers29
. Schäfer et al30
suggest that this rejection remains stable; being rejected in primary
school significantly increases the likeliness of being rejected in secondary school. Although
this does not make it clear whether bullying behaviour predicts peer rejection or vice versa, it
suggests that peer rejection and bullying behaviour are interlinked.
Peer rejection, disengagement and bullying
Transitioning from primary school to secondary school with a poor social support network,
can lead to poor academic motivation31
. As those targeted for PACS are likely to suffer peer
rejection, it is suggested that they will lack the motivation to engage in school32
.This lack of
motivation to engage in the school community, as Ladd et al33
suggests, will worsen their
academic success34
.
Disengagement and truancy
Disengagement is widely acknowledged as being multi-dimensional when it concerns young
people’s engagement with school and their learning35
. Disengagement consists of
behavioural, cognitive and emotional components; behavioural engagement is the
participation in social and academic activities, cognitive engagement is willingness to work,
put effort in and understand and emotional engagement is the tie to the school and staff36
.
Schools look at several indicators, such as: attendance, progress, attainment and (poor)
behaviour to determine whether a child is ‘disengaged’37
.
Truancy and disengagement are often discussed together because there is strong
evidence to suggest that truancy is a strong indicator of disengagement38
. Truancy is
discussed as an act that has serious consequences on a young person’s life, such as
25
Burgess et al, 2006
26
Ladd et al, 2008
27
Aluede et al, 2008; Lochman et al, 2006; Nipedal et al, 2010; Ojala & Nesdale, 2004; Olweus, 1997;
Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005; Sutton et al, 1999
28
Caravita & Blasio (2008)
29
Findlay et al, 2006; Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005; Twenge et al, 2001
30
Schäfer et al (2004)
31
Qualter et al, 2007
32
Buhs, 2005; Buhs et al, 2006; Burgess et al, 2006; Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Dodge et al, 2003;
Findlay et al, 2006; Fredricks et al, 2004; Ladd et al, 2008; Prinstein & Aikens, 2004
33
Ladd et al, 2008
34
O’Donnell et al, 1995; Ozkan & Cifci, 2009
35
Appleton et al, 2008; Axelson & Flick, 2011; Balfanz et al, 2007; Durlak et al, 2011; Foliano et al,
2010; Fredricks et al, 2004; Furlong & Christenson, 2008; Mahatmya et al, 2012
36
Foliano et al, 2010
37
Southcott et al, 2013
38
Balfanz et al, 2007; Henry & Thornberry, 2010; Henry et al, 2012; Janosz et al, 2000; Foliano et al,
2010; Salzer et al, 2012; Sodha & Guglielmi, 2009; Strand, 2014

4. © Kidscape 2015
4
involvement in the criminal justice system39
, later psychiatric problems40
and substance
misuse41
.
As with the correlation between peer rejection and aggressive behaviour, it cannot be
categorically proven that disengagement predicts truancy, but as Janosz et al42
demonstrates, all those in their study who truanted and eventually dropped out of school
showed low engagement to school.
Truancy, disengagement and exclusion
Disengagement and truancy have been described as a strong predictor of school
exclusion,43
however, the most common reason for exclusion is disruptive behaviour44
.
Similar in its risks to truancy and aggressive behaviour, Brown45
demonstrates that those
who were excluded from school were likely to become involved in delinquency and
experience psychiatric problems. It has been suggested that once a student has been
excluded from school on a temporary basis, when they return they fall into a cyclical pattern
of exclusions because they lose a connection with the school and their peers, leading to
them feeling isolated46
. Daniels & Cole47
looked at young people who had been permanently
excluded from school and their sample showed that these young people felt marginalised
from society, which led them into offending behaviour.
‘Theory of the problem’
PACS targets young people aged 11-12 who have been identified as disengaged from
school and exhibiting aggressive and/or bullying behaviour. There is a significant amount of
evidence related to these characteristics that shows the tremendous negative effect they can
have on young people’s future without intervention; offending behaviour, involvement in the
criminal justice system, substance misuse and psychiatric problems. There are also
implications to these risks such as homelessness48
and a reduced chance of becoming
involved in the labour market49
to name a couple. There is evidence that shows how
disengagement, aggressive behaviour and exclusion all interact with peer rejection showing
a commonality which could lead to an increased chance of risks occurring. The evidence
that supports the strategies and mechanisms used by PACS to encourage empathy,
confidence, assertiveness and prosocial behaviour will be discussed.
Protective factors:
Approach of PACS
PACS is an intervention that is aimed at young people to reduce bullying, aggression and
disengagement. Without intervention, it is likely that these characteristics would persist and
lead to the risks discussed previously (offending behaviour, criminal behaviour, susbstance
misuse and psychiatric problems). Below, the mechanisms used in PACS to protect against
39
Bond et al, 2007; Henry et al, 2012; Hirschfield & Gasper et al, 2011; O’Donnell et al, 1995;
Simons-Morton et al, 1999
40
Ross, 2009; Smink & Reimer, 2005
41
Baker et al, 2001; Henry & Thornberry, 2010; Reid, 2005; Strand, 2014
42
Janosz et al (2000)
43
Brown, 2007; Christenson & Thurlow, 2004
44
Daniels & Cole, 2010; Theriot et al, 2010; Tucker, 2013
45
2007
46
Brown, 2007; Daniels & Cole, 2010; Tucker, 2013
47
2010
48
Fitzpatrick et al,2013
49
Henry et al, 2012

5. © Kidscape 2015
5
the risks associated with the target group’s behaviour will be discussed. Improving
assertiveness, prosocial behaviour, relationships and engagement with learning for young
people at a time when development is at its peak (in terms of many changes happening at
one time) will enable the young people targeted for PACS to achieve more academically,
improve and gain relationships and increase their affective empathy.
Aggression, conflict resolution and information processing
Aggressive young people tend to interpret ambiguous situations in an aggressive way50
and
hold more accepting attitudes towards aggression and bullying51
. It has been suggested that
they have a limited range of non-aggressive responses so tend to respond aggressively. In
brief, there are stages to how we process information and there are many reasons why this
process may be disrupted in development; for example, young people may draw on past
experiences when aggression was rewarded or when they have grown up in a hostile
environment52
. A bully may view aggression as a positive strategy to get their desired
response - hurting someone’s feelings53
.
PACS looks at ways of providing young people with strategies to respond in a more positive
way to challenging interactions; ensuring they have a number of responses to counteract
any prior disruptions to the way they process information in challenging situations. Walking
away, counting to 10, deep breathing and talking to someone are a number of key strategies
that students practise throughout the course. When next in a challenging situation, they put
these strategies into action; regulating their emotions to give them space and time to
respond positively and reconcile the interaction54
. ‘Managing conflict’ is an activity used to
open up discussions about how to regulate responses and ways to improve the outcomes of
arguments55
. Young people are given a range of strategies to allow them to pick the most
appropriate one for the situation, as well as giving them a voice in choosing conflict
resolution56
. PACS also uses role-plays as they are an effective way of rehearsing
responses to challenging situations so they feel more confident when in a real-life situation57
.
Bullying, empathy and prosocial behaviour
Empathy can inhibit aggression and plays a key role in interventions aimed at reducing
bullying behaviour58
. Empathetic young people have developed a better social
understanding compared to aggressive young people who tend to suffer from peer
rejection59
. This is because those who can understand and manage emotions have a better
understanding of other people’s emotions as well as their own and can therefore recognise
the consequences of their behaviour60
.
50
Burgess et al, 2006; Findlay et al, 2006; Gini, 2006; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009; Kaukiainen et al, 1999;
Lochman et al, 2006; Sutton et al, 1999
51
Aluede et al, 2008; Hymel et al, 2005; Olweus, 1997
52
Sutton et al, 1999
53
Lochman et al, 2006
54
Caprara et al, 2014; Wolfe et al, 2011
55
Castillo et al, 2013
56
Huntley & Owens, 2013; Sellman, 2011
57
Hromek & Roffey, 2009
58
Castillo et al, 2013; Eisenberg et al, 2010; Makinde & Akinteye, 2014; Stavrinides et al, 2010
59
Findlay et al, 2006
60
Makinde & Akinteye, 2014

6. © Kidscape 2015
6
PACS works with young people who have been identified as displaying bullying and
aggressive behaviour and literature suggests (as previously mentioned) that this particular
group of young people lack empathy, specifically affective empathy. Interventions aimed at
improving empathy include activities about emotions and social skills such as role-plays and
discussions61
. Role-play and group discussions are activities designed to build confidence
and perspective taking62
. For example, one activity in PACS is a discussion about body
language and how it is interpreted. Young people discuss people’s roles and learn to
understand others’ perspectives; they then act out scenarios, taking on different roles to
build their confidence and efficacy in using these skills in real life situations. As Hromek &
Roffey63
discuss, role-plays are a fun and challenging way of learning how to respond to
real-life situations. Group discussions are an opportunity to share feelings and reflect on
their own emotions which helps young people relate to each other in non-violent ways64
and
improve their ‘emotional vocabulary’65
. A significant feature in the literature about empathy is
its positive relationship with prosocial behaviour66
.
Prosocial behaviour
Prosocial behaviour is the ‘voluntary behaviour intended to benefit another’67
. It has been
linked with academic achievement and positive relationships68
. Young people who are able
to take the perspective of others and share their feelings are likely to be more cooperative
with peers; reducing the likeliness of them being rejected by peers69
. Prosocial behaviour is
promoted throughout PACS by providing young people with strategies which regulate their
emotions and improves empathy through reflection and role-plays; these components are
seen as “critical ingredients” for prosocial behaviour70
.
However, the internal desire to be prosocial needs to be externalised and this is achieved by
improving efficacy71
.
Prosocial behaviour and efficacy
Efficacy is an individual’s belief in their own functioning72
; i.e the belief that they can produce
the desired outcome73
. If a young person has high self-efficacy and prosocial tendencies,
they are less vulnerable to stress and most likely to have strong peer relationships74
,
motivation75
, resilience76
and greater academic achievement77
. As Bandura78
highlights, the
61
Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Gini et al, 2007; Lochman et al, 2006; Stavrinides et al, 2010
62
Caprara & Steca, 2005; Caprara et al, 2014; Castillo et al, 2013; Eisenberg et al, 2010; Gini et at,
2007; Gini et al, 2008
63
Hromek & Roffey (2009)
64
Cowie & Hutson, 2005; Tucker, 2013
65
Eisenberg et al, 2010
66
Aluede et al, 2008; Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Caprara & Steca, 2005; Eisenberg et al, 2010; Eklund
et al, 2012; Findlay et al, 2006; Gini et al, 2007; Lam et al, 2012; Laible et al, 2004; Ozkan & Cifci,
2009
67
Eisenberg et al, 2010, page 3
68
Caravita & Blasio, 2008; Eklund et al, 2012; Findlay et al, 2006; Layous et al, 2012; Siu et al, 2012
69
Caprara et al, 2014
70
Caprara et al, 2014, page 3
71
Aluede et al, 2008; Bandura, 2001; Caprara & Steca, 2005; Eklund et al, 2012; Findlay et al, 2006;
Gini et al, 2008
72
Aluede et al, 2008
73
Bandura, 2001
74
Pastorelli et al, 2001
75
Eklund et al, 2012; Lindahl & Archer, 2013
76
NCH, 2007
77
Eklund et al, 2012; Lindahl & Archer, 2013; Schunk & Meece, 2005

7. © Kidscape 2015
7
most appropriate way for young people to practise efficacy is modelling, mastery
experiences, social persuasion and managing physiological arousal79
. Activities such as
role-plays and rehearsing strategies in PACS are effective ways to improve efficacy because
the young people are learning how to self-regulate their behaviour80
and problem-solve81
.
With high self-efficacy, it is likely that young people will be more academically motivated and
those who are more prosocial are likely to be popular82
. These are two components to tackle
disengagement.
Disengagement, exclusions and self-efficacy
Engagement to school is seen as a key ingredient to academic success and there are many
components that can disrupt it83
. However, to confront disengagement can be quite
challenging. Efficacy and positive relationships with peers contribute to young people
engaging with school84
. Peer groups provide a sense of emotional security for young
people85
and having this support network of friends is a significant predictor of
engagement86
. Peer rejection suppresses the motivation to engage with peers87
. A young
person with high self-efficacy has high expectations88
which, not only encourages them to
seek out involvement but it reduces the negative feelings when they have failed.
Pritchard & Williams89
emphasise the benefits of a school based service because it improves
the attachment to the school and education. Creating a supportive relationship between
staff, young people and peers will encourage engagement and confidence to make friends90
.
PACS is a school-based intervention, led by a member of staff. This encourages young
people to have a member of staff with whom they can ‘sit and talk’91
. Interventions led by
pastoral staff help students engage with school and cope with stressors, especially when
they have returned to school after being excluded. Tucker also highlights the need for group
work because it gives young people an opportunity to speak with peers which are
experiencing the same problems as them.
Target group
PACS is specifically targeted at young people in year seven, aged 11-12. These young
people have transitioned from dyadic relationships to more complex peer groups92
. Schools
play an important part in the development of young people because this is where they spend
a significant amount of time93
and those in early adolescence are more sensitive to
interventions focusing on peer relationships. This is because they place more value on
78
Bandura (1989)
79
Komarraju & Nadler, 2013
80
Caprara et al, 2011
81
Bandura, 1989
82
Eklund et al, 2012
83
Furlong & Christenson, 2008
84
Schunk & Meece, 2005; Sourdander, 2006
85
Wentzel, 2005
86
Furlong & Christenson, 2008; Huntley & Owens, 2013; McGee et al, 2003
87
Buhs, 2005; Buhs et al, 2006; Ladd et al, 2008
88
Lindahl & Archer, 2013
89
Pritchard & Williams (2001)
90
Daniels & Cole, 2010; Furlong & Christenson, 2008; Tucker, 2013; Wentzel, 2005
91
Tucker, 2013 PAGE REFERENCE
92
Espelage et al, 2003; Rutland et al, 2005; Schäfer et al, 2004
93
Caprara et al, 2014

8. © Kidscape 2015
8
relationships and are having to manage new and complex rules94
. This is an important time
to teach young people to understand others and their emotions95
.
In the first year of secondary school, attainment tends to decrease96
. This is an important
time to develop productive coping strategies like keeping calm and problem-solving97
so they
don’t lose motivation and begin to disengage from school98
. Balfanz et al99
argues that by
the time adolescents are in year nine and disengaged, it is much harder to intervene and
therefore, targeting a group of young people disengaged from school at the beginning of
adolescence is a beneficial time100
.
‘Theory of the solution’
PACS has many components that benefit those that meet the criteria; disengaged from
school and exhibiting aggressive and/or bullying behaviour. Each week is themed so that the
young people are not bombarded with new information all at once and they have the
opportunity to rehearse and discuss the components as they are introduced. PACS is based
on four key principles; Positive, Assertive, Confidence and Skill-based strategies. To help
this vulnerable group avoid the criminal justice system, psychiatric symptoms and substance
misuse, PACS uses techniques such as role-plays, modelling, rehearsal, emotional
regulation and problem solving strategies. This will equip these young people with an
improved sense of empathy, conflict resolution, efficacy, prosocial behaviour and healthy
relationships as well as encouraging them to be more positive, assertive and confident.
Conclusion
This review has sought to demonstrate that there is evidence which positively supports the
PACS theory of change model. It is an approach that supports the acquisition of
interpersonal skills, positive peer relationships and a stronger connection to one’s school.
PACS incorporates multiple proven techniques that means it can achieve its outcomes by
way of reducing disengagement, bullying and aggressive behaviour and developing
prosocial, efficacious and empathetic behaviour.
94
Nipedal et al, 2010
95
Lam et al, 2012
96
Foliano et al, 2010; Mahatmya et al, 2012; McGee et al, 2003
97
Huntley & Owens, 2013
98
Qualter et al, 2007
99
Balfanz et al (2007)
100
Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007

9. © Kidscape 2015
9
Reference list
Aluede et al (2008) ‘A review of the extent, nature, characteristics and effects of bullying
behaviour in schools’ Journal of Instructional Psychology 35(2) pp 151-158
Appleton et al (2008) ‘Student Engagement With School: Critical Conceptual And
Methodological Issues Of The Construct’ Psychology in the Schools 45(5) pp. 369-386
Arseneault et al (2010) ‘Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much
ado about nothing’?’ Psychological Medicine 40 pp. 717-729
Axelson, R & Flick, A (2011) ‘Defining Student Engagement’ Change 5(1) pp 38-43
Baker et al, (2001) Truancy reduction: Keeping students in school [Online] Available at:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/188947.pdf (Accessed 16th January 2015)
Balfanz et al (2007) ‘Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the
Graduation Path in Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early Identification and Effective
Interventions’ Educational Psychologist 42(4) pp. 223-235
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development.
Vol. 6. Six theories of child development Greenwich, CT: JAI Press pp 1-60.
Bandura, A (2001) ‘Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic Perspective’ Annual Review
Psychology 52 pp. 1-26
Bandura, A (2002) ‘Social Cognitive Theory in Cultural Context’ Applied Psychology 51(2) pp
269-290
Banerjee, R (2002) ‘Audience Effects on Self-Presentation in Childhood’ Social Development
11(4) pp. 487-507
Bond et al (2007) ‘Social and School Connectedness in Early Secondary School as
Predictors of Late Teenage Substance Use, Mental Health, and Academic Outcomes’
Journal of Adolescent Health 40 357.e9–357.e18 [Online]
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.013 (Accessed 12th
May 2015).
Brown, T.M (2007) ‘Lost and Turned Out. Academic, Social, and Emotional Experiences of
Students Excluded From School’ Urban Education 42 (5) pp. 432-455
Buhs et al (2006) ‘Peer Exclusion and Victimization: Processes That Mediate the Relation
Between Peer Group Rejection and Children’s Classroom Engagement and
Achievement?’ Journal of Educational Psychology 98 (1) pp. 1-13
Buhs, E (2005) ‘Peer rejection, negative peer treatment, and school adjustment: Self-
concept and classroom engagement as mediating processes’ Journal of School
Psychology 43(5) pp 407-424
Burgess et al, (2006) ‘Social Information Processing and Coping Strategies of Shy/
Withdrawn and Aggressive Children: Does Friendship Matter?’ Child Development 77(2)
pp. 371-383
Caprara, G & Steca, P (2005) ‘Self–Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants Of Prosocial Behavior
Conducive To Life Satisfaction Across Ages’ Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
24(2) pp. 191-217
Caprara et al (2011) ‘The contribution of personality traits and self-efficacy beliefs to
academic achievement: A longitudinal study’ British Journal of Educational Psychology 81
pp. 78-96
Caprara et al (2014) ‘Positive effects of promoting prosocial behavior in early adolescence
Evidence from a school-based intervention’ International Journal of Behavioural
Development 38(4) pp386-396
Caravita, S & Blasio, P (2008) ‘Unique and Interactive Effects of Empathy and Social Status
on Involvement in Bullying’ Social Development 18(1) pp 140-163 [Online] doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00465.x (Accessed 18th
February 2015)
Castillo et al (2013) ‘Effects of an emotional intelligence intervention on aggression and
empathy among adolescents’ Journal of Adolescence 36 pp. 883-892
Christenson, S & Thurlow, M (2004) ‘School Dropouts: Prevention Considerations,
Interventions, and Challenges’ Current Directions in Psychological Science 13(1) pp 36-
39

10. © Kidscape 2015
10
Cowie, H & Hutson, N (2005) ‘Peer Support: A Strategy to Help Bystanders Challenge
School Bullying’ Pastoral Care 23(2) pp 40-44 [Online] DOI: 10.1111/j.0264-
3944.2005.00331.x (Accessed 29th January 2015)
Cunningham et al (1998) ‘The effects of primary division, student mediated conflict resolution
programs on playground aggression’ Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry 39(5) pp
653-662
Daniels, H & Cole, T (2010) ‘Exclusion from school: short term set back or a long term of
difficulties?’ European Journal of Special Needs Education 25(2) pp. 115-130
Dodge et al (2003) ‘Peer Rejection and Social Information-Processing Factors in the
Development of Aggressive Behavior Problems in Children’ Child Development 74(2) pp
374-393
Duffy, A & Nesdale, D (2008) ‘Peer Groups, Social Identity, and Children's Bullying Behavior’
Social Development 18(1) pp 121-139
Durlak et al (2011) ‘The Impact of Enhancing Students’ Social and Emotional Learning: A
Meta-Analysis of School-Based Universal Interventions’ Child Development 82(1) pp.405-
432
Eisenberg et al (2010) ‘Empathy-related Responding: Associations with Prosocial Behavior,
Aggression, and Intergroup Relations’ Social Issues Policy Review 4(1) pp.143-180
Eklund et al (2012) ‘Who Cares About Others?: Empathic Self-Efficacy As An Antecedent To
Prosocial Behavior’ Current Research in Social Psychology 20(3) pp.31-41 [Online]
Available at: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ996204 (Accessed 16th
January 2015)
Espelage et al (2003) ‘Examination of Peer-Group Contextual Effects on Aggression during
Early Adolescence’ Child Development 74(1) pp 205-220
Espelage et al (2011) ‘Willingness to Intervene in Bullying Episodes Among Middle School
Students: Individual and Peer-Group Influences’ The Journal of Early Adolescence pp. 1-
26 [Online] doi:10.1177/0272431611423017(Accessed 29th
January 2015).
Findlay et al (2006) ‘Links between empathy, social behaviour and social understanding in
early childhood’ Early Childhood Quarterly 21(3) pp 347-359
Fitzpatrick et al (2013) ‘Pathways into Multiple Exclusion Homelessness in Seven UK Cities’
Urban Studies 50(1) pp 148-168
Foliano et al (2010) Why do children become disengaged from school? [Online] Department
from Quantitative Social Science: London (Accessed 16th
January 2015) Available at:
repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp1006.pdf
Fredricks et al (2004) ‘School engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence’
Review of Educational Research 74(1) pp 59-109
Furlong, M & Christenson, S (2008) ‘Engaging Students At School And With Learning: A
Relevant Construct For All Students’ Psychology in the Schools 45(5) pp. 365-368
Get Connected (2015) Connected Generation Report [Online] [Accessed 26th
February
2015] Available at: http://www.getconnected.org.uk/impact/connected-generation-report/
Gini, G and Pozzoli, T (2009) ‘Association between Bullying and Psychosomatic Problems: A
meta-analysis’ Pediatrics 123(3) pp 1059-1065
Gini et al (2007) ‘Does empathy predict adolescents' bullying and defending behaviour?’
Aggressive Behavior 33(5) pp 467-476
Gini et al (2008) ‘The role of bystanders in students' perception of bullying and sense of
safety’ Journal of School Psychology 46 pp 617-638
Gini, G (2006) ‘Bullying as a social process: The role of group membership in students
perception of inter-group aggression at school’ Journal of School Psychology 44(1) pp 51-
65
Henry, K,L and Thornberry, T (2010) ‘Truancy and Escalation of Substance Use During
Adolescence’ Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 71 pp. 115-124
Henry et al (2012) ‘School Disengagement as a Predictor of Dropout, Delinquency and
problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood’ Journal of Youth and
Adolescence 41(2) pp 156-166

11. © Kidscape 2015
11
Hirschfield & Gasper et al (2011) ‘The relationship between school engagement and
delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence’ Journal of Youth Adolescence 40(1)
pp 3-22
Hromek, R & Roffey, S (2009) ‘Promoting Social and Emotional Learning With Games’
Simulation & Gaming 40(5) pp 626-644
Huntley, J and Owens, L (2013) ‘Collaborative conversations: adolescent girls’ own
strategies for managing conflict within their friendship groups’ International Journal of
Adolescence and Youth 18(4) pp. 236-247
Hymel et al (2005) ‘Moral Disengagement: A Framework for Understanding Bullying Among
Adolescents’ Journal of Social Sciences 8 pp. 33-43 [Online] Available at:
www.krepublishers.com/.../JSS-SI-08-01-001-011-Hymel-S-Text.pdf (Accessed 16th
January 2015)
Janosz et al (2000) ‘Predicting Different Types of School Dropouts: A Typological Approach
With Two Longitudinal Samples’ Journal of Educational Psychology 92(1) pp. 171-190
Kalliotis, P (2000) ‘Bullying as a Special Case of Aggression’ School Psychology
International 21(1) pp 47-64
Kaukiainen et al (1999) ‘The relationships between social intelligence, empathy and three
types of aggression’ Aggressive Behavior 25(2) pp 81-89
Komarraju, M & Nadler, D (2013) ‘Self-efficacy and academic achievement: Why do implicit
beliefs, goals, and effort regulation matter?’ Learning and Individual Differences 25, pp.
67-72
Ladd et al, 2008 ‘Does chronic classroom peer rejection predict the development of
children’s classroom participation during the grade school years’ Child Development
79(4) pp 1001-1015
Laible et al (2004) Pathways to Self-Esteem in Late Adolescence: The Role of Parent and
Peer Attachment, Empathy, and Social Behaviors’ Journal of Adolescence 27(6) pp 703-
716
Lam et al (2012) ‘Sibling Relationships and Empathy Across the Transition to Adolescence
Sibling Relationships and Empathy Across the Transition to Adolescence’ Journal of
Youth Adolescence 41(12) pp.1657-1670
Layous et al (2012) ‘Kindness Counts: Prompting Prosocial Behavior in Preadolescents
Boosts Peer Acceptance and Well-Being’ PLoS ONE 7(12) e51380. [Online]
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051380 (Accessed 23rd
June 2015).
Lindahl, M & Archer, T (2013) Depressive Expression and Anti-Depressive Protection in
Adolescence: Stress, Positive Affect, Motivation and Self-Efficacy’ Psychology 4(6) pp.
495-505
Lochman et al (2006) Anger and Aggression. In: Bear, G and Minke, K eds. Children’s
Needs III Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists, pp. 115-134
Lovett,B.J & Sheffield, R.A (2006) ‘Affective empathy deficits in aggressive children and
adolescents: A critical review’ Clinical Psychology Review 27(1) pp 1-13
Mahatmya et al (2012) Engagement across Developmental Periods. In: Christenson et al
eds. Research on Student Engagement New York: Springer pp 45-63
Makinde, B and Akinteye, A (2014) ‘Effects of Mentoring and Assertiveness Training on
Adolescents’ Self-Esteem in Lagos State Secondary Schools’ International Journal of
Social Science Studies 2(3) pp. 78-88
McGee et al (2003) ‘Transition to secondary school: A literature review’ The University of
Waikato: Ministry of Education, New Zealand (0-478-18797-1)
Monks et al (2009) ‘Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences and the role of
theory’ Aggression and Violent Behavior 14 pp 146-156
NCH, (2007) Resilience in Children and Young People [Online] NCH: London. Available at:
https://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/resources-and-publications/research/resilience-in-
children-and-young-people-review/ (Accessed 16th
January 2015)
Nipedal et al (2010) ‘Social group norms, school norms, and children's aggressive intentions’
Aggressive Behaviour 36(3) pp 195-204

12. © Kidscape 2015
12
O’Connell et al (1999) ‘Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention’
Journal of Adolescence 22 pp. 437-452
O’Donnell et al (1995) ‘Preventing school failure, drug use, and delinquency among low-
income children: Long-term intervention in elementary schools’ American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 65(1) pp 87-100
Ojala, K & Nesdale, D 2004 ‘Bullying and social identity: The effects of group norms and
distinctiveness threat on attitudes towards bullying’ British Journal of Developmental
Psychology’ 22(1) pp 19-35
Olweus, D (1997) ‘Bully/Victim problems in schools: Facts and interventions’ European
Journal of Psychology of education 12(4) pp 495-510
Ozkan, Y & Cifci, E.G (2009) ‘The effect of empathy level on Peer Bullying in Schools’
Humanity & Social Sciences Journal 4(1) pp.31-38
Pastorelli et al (2001) ‘The Structure of Children’s Perceived Self-Efficacy: A Cross-National
Study’ European Journal of Psychological Assessment 17(2) pp. 87-97
Pingault et al (2013) ‘Childhood Hyperactivity, Physical Aggression and Criminality: A 19-
Year Prospective Population-Based Study’ PLoS ONE 8(5): e62594.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0062594 (Accessed 16th
June 2015).
Polanin et al (2012) ‘A Meta-Analysis of School-Based Bullying Prevention Programs’ Effects
on Bystander Intervention Behavior’ School Psychology Review 41(1) pp. 47-65
Prinstein, M & Aikens, J.W (2004) ‘Cognitive Moderators of the Longitudinal Association
Between Peer Rejection and Adolescent Depressive Symptoms’ Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology 32(2) pp 147-158
Pritchard, C & Williams, R (2001) ‘A three year comparative longitudinal study of a school
based social work family service to reduce truancy, delinquency and school exclusions’
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law 23(1) pp 23-43
Qualter et al (2007) ‘Supporting the Development of Emotional Intelligence Competencies to
Ease the Transition from Primary to High School’ Educational Psychology in Practise
23(1) pp. 79-95
Reid, K (2005) Tackling Truancy in Schools. 2nd
edition. Routledge: London.
Rigby, K & Johnson, B (2006) ‘Expressed Readiness of Australian Schoolchildren to Act as
Bystanders in Support of Children who are Being Bullied’ Educational Psychology 26(3)
pp. 425-440
Ross, A (2009) Disengagement from Education among 14-16 year olds National Centre for
Social Research: London
Rutland et al (2005) ‘Social Norms and Self-Presentation: Children’s Implicit and Explicit
Intergroup Attitudes’ Child Development 76(2) pp. 451-466
Sälzer et al (2012) ‘Predicting adolescent truancy: The importance of distinguishing between
different aspects of instructional quality’ Learning and Instruction 22 pp. 311-319
Schäfer et al (2004) Bullying Roles in Changing Contexts: The Stability of Victim and Bully
Roles from Primary to Secondary School Germany: Ludwig-Maximilians-University,
Department of Psychology, Institute for Educational Psychology (Research report No.
165, February 2004)
Schunk, D.H & Meece, J.L (2005) 'Self efficacy development in Adolescences’ In: Pajares, F
and Urdan, T eds. Self-efficacy beliefs of Adolescents. USA: Information Age Publishing,
Inc pp 71-96
Selah-Shayovits, R (2004) ‘School for Aggression: Types of Adolescent Aggression in
School Students and School Dropouts’ International Journal of Adolescence and Youth
11 pp. 303-316
Sellman, E (2011) ‘Peer mediation services for conflict resolution in schools: What
transformations in activity characterise successful implementation?’ British Educational
Research Journal 37(1) pp 45-60
Simons-Morton et al (1999) ‘Student–school bonding and adolescent problem behavior’
Health Education Research 14(1) pp. 99-107
Siu et al (2012) ‘Prosocial Norms as a Positive Youth Development Construct: A Conceptual
Review’ The Scientific World Journal [Online] Article ID 832026. Available at:
doi:10.1100/2012/832026 (Accessed 16th
January 2015)

13. © Kidscape 2015
13
Smink, J & Reimer, M.S (2005) Fifteen Effective Strategies for Improving Student
Attendance and Truancy Prevention [Online] National Dropout Prevention Center:
Clemson University (23rd
April 2015).
Smokowski, P & Kopasz, K.H (2005) ‘Bullying in School: An overview of Types, Effects,
Family Characteristics and Intervention Strategies’ Children & Schools 27(2) pp 101-110
Sodha, S and Guglielmi, S (2009) a stitch in time: tackling educational disengagement
interim report. London: Demos.
Sourander et al (2006) ‘Childhood Predictors of Male Criminality: A Prospective Population-
Based Follow-up Study From Age 8 to Late Adolescence’ Journal of the American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 45(5) pp 578-586
Southcott et al (2013) Indicators to identify the disengaged [Online] Slough: NFER
[Accessed 16th
January 2015) Available at:
https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/INDS01/INDS01.pdf
Stavrinides et al (2010) ‘Bullying and empathy: a short-term longitudinal investigation’
Educational Psychology pp 1-10 [Online] Available at: DOI:
10.1080/01443410.2010.506004 (Accessed 29th
January 2015)
Strand, A (2014) ‘‘School – no thanks – it ain’t my thing’: accounts for truancy. Students’
perspectives on their truancy and school lives’ International Journal of Adolescence and
Youth 19(2) pp. 262-277
Sutton et al (1999) ‘Bullying and ‘Theory of Mind’: A Critique of the ‘Social Skills Deficit’ View
of Anti-Social Behaviour’ Social Development [Online] 8(1) pp. 117-127
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9507.00083 (Accessed 16th
January 2015)
Swearer, S & Doll, B (2001) ‘Bullying in schools: An ecological framework’ Journal of
Emotional Abuse 2 pp 7-23
Theriot et al (2010) ‘Multilevel evaluation of factors predicting school exclusion among
middle and high school students’ Children and Youth Services Review 32 pp. 13-19
Ttofi, M & Farringdon, D (2008) ‘Bullying: Short term and long term effects and the
Importance of Defiance Theory in Explanation and Prevention’ Victims & Offenders 3 pp
289-312
Ttofi, M & Farrington, D (2011) ‘Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying:
a systematic and meta-analytic review’ Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(1) pp 27-
56
Tucker, S (2013) ‘Pupil vulnerability and school exclusion: developing responsive pastoral
policies and practices in secondary education in the UK’ Pastoral Care in Education 31(4)
pp. 279-291
Twenge et al (2001) ‘If You Can't Join Them, Beat Them: Effects of Social Exclusion on
Aggressive Behavior’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81(6) pp. 1058-1069
Van der Wal et al (2003) ‘Psychosocial Health among Young Victims and Offenders of Direct
and Indirect Bullying’ Pediatrics 111(6) pp 1312-1317
Vreeman, R & Carroll, A (2007) ‘A Systematic Review of School-Based Interventions to
Prevent Bullying’ Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 161(1) pp. 78-88
Waasdorp et al (2012) ‘The Impact of Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports on Bullying and Peer Rejection’ Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
166(2) pp 149-156
Wentzel, K (2005) Peer Relationships Motivation and Academic Performance at School. In:
Elliot, A and Dweck, S eds. Handbook of Competence and Motivation. New York:
Guildford Publication Inc. pp 279-296
Wilson, S & Lipsey, M (2007) ‘School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive
behavior’ American journal of preventive medicine 33(2S) pp 130-143
Windle et al (2008) ‘Transitions into Underage drinking’ Pediatrics 121 (Suppl 4) pp. S273-
S289
Wolfe et al (2011) ‘Observations of Adolescent Peer Resistance Skills Following Classroom-
Based Healthy Relationship Program: A Post-intervention Comparison’ Prevention
Science 13 pp.196-205
Woods, S & White, E (2005) ‘The association between bullying behaviour, arousal levels and
behaviour problems’ Journal of Adolescence 28(3) pp 381-395