Journal of Adolescence 2002, 25, 453–467doi:10.1006/jado.2002.0498, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Knowledge, use of and attitudes towards peer support:a 2-year follow-up to the Prince’s Trust survey

HELEN COWIE, PAUL NAYLOR, LORENZO TALAMELLI PREETI CHAUHAN AND

PETER K. SMITH

This present study investigated how school peer support systems studied 2 years earlierin a survey funded by The Prince’s Trust have evolved. In all, 413 pupils (actual andpotential users of the systems) aged 13–14 (Year 9 – Y9) and 15–16 (Year 11 F Y11),34 teachers in charge of systems and 80 peer supporters in 35 secondary schools wereinterviewed using structured schedules for the pupils and semi-structured ones for theteachers and peer supporters. All of these interviews focussed on the respondents’perceptions and experiences of the school’s peer support system, including: theperceived benefits to users of the system; benefits to peer supporters; problems with thesystem and the attempts made to overcome them. There was widespread support forthe systems and a strong sense that both teachers and peer supporters wereincreasingly confident about the value of their service. However, some problemsremain, notably with regard to gender. The study documents difficulties in therecruitment and retention of boys as peer supporters because of peer pressure toconform to a ‘‘macho’’ image. The issue is discussed and some solutions presented.

r 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.

Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Introduction

The quality of peer relationships, the roles that young people have in relation to theirpeers, and the sense of responsibility towards the community that they have will affecttheir sense of self, sense of others and construction of the social world (Craig andPepler, 1995). Increasingly, practitioners suggest that peer support systems make a significantcontribution to each of the three rights of the child for ‘‘protection from abuse’’, ‘‘provision ofa reasonable quality of life’’ and ‘‘democratic principles’’ (Children’s Rights DevelopmentUnit (CDRU), 1994). By doing these things, such systems contribute to all young people’spersonal and social education, and to citizenship education (Naylor and Cowie, 2000) soenhancing the quality of life in their schools and communities (Sharp and Cowie, 1998). Atthe time of writing this article, there is a surge of interest in the use of systems of peersupport to address interpersonal difficulties among young people. In the U.K., the PeerSupport Forum was established in 2000 to provide a central arena for collating informationabout practice and research in the field. The website attracted thousands of visitsand the forum organised a highly successful national conference to disseminate ideas to awide audience. The newsletter of the Forum (www.peersupport.co.uk) attracted interna-tional attention and influenced practice in such countries as Italy, Spain, Portugal andJapan.

As Fry and Fry (1997) argue, socialization and social learning processes are essentialfactors for shaping the behaviour and attitudes of young people. Through socialization withina culture, individuals acquire views on the nature of the social world, develop sets of values

Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to: H. Cowie, School of Psychology and Counselling,University of Surrey Roehampton, West Hill, London SW15 3SN, U.K. (E-mail: h.cowie@roehampton.ac.uk).

0140-1971/02/$35�00 # 2002 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents.Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

454 H. Cowie et al.

and understand the meaning of events within their community. The influence of the schoolcommunity on young people is profound (Craig and Pepler, 1995). Boulton et al. (1999)found that young people who have a reciprocated best friend are much more likely to beprotected from aggressive acts or social exclusion on the part of the peer group. Theimplications of this finding are that, in the context of a reciprocated friendship, young peopleare motivated to help one another against peer relationship difficulties. This confirms theview that vulnerable young people can be protected by appropriate befriending interventions.Since some of the issues that cause young people distress originate in the peer group, it isperhaps easy to understand why adults so often overlook the possibility that the solution maylie with the young people themselves (Naylor et al., 2001).

The nature of peer support

Peer support systems are increasingly being developed in schools and colleges to supplementthe work of pastoral care staff. Peer supporters are usually volunteers, often self-nominated.In many systems, peer supporters play a part in the selection of new recruits, and the morethe training, the more likely it is that existing peer supporters play an active part in theselection process. Typically, peer volunteers receive need-based, goal-directed andexperiential training. Often, but not always, they are supervised or debriefed on a regularbasis. Teachers with the support of other professionals, for example counsellors or educationalpsychologists, create structures within which to enhance the helpful behaviour that cantransform a school or other organization from one that is cold and indifferent to one that iswarm, friendly and emotionally open. Peer support builds on the resources that friendsspontaneously offer one another, and it can happen anywhere, in any organization, in any agegroup.

Peer support systems, whether formal or informal, require that the peer supporter shouldbe skilled in communication, should be able to listen actively to another person, and shouldadopt a problem-solving approach to the other’s difficulty. Peer supporters need these skills aswell as empathy for a person with social or emotional difficulties and a willingness to take asupportive role. Adults play a significant part in helping young people acquire and developthese skills by providing training in a supportive environment. In this way, they give youngpeople the opportunity to offer a direct response to requests for help with regard to a specificproblem. They also give the peer helpers skills and strategies for helping users of the systemto find solutions to their problem. Though the immediate work of support is done by peerhelpers, adults retain a supportive and supervisory role without imposing solutions. The mostcommon forms of peer support are befriending (Demetriades, 1996; Abu-Rasain and Williams,1999; Ortega and del Rey, 1999; Menesini et al., 2002), mediation/conflict resolution(Osterman et al., 1997; Stacey and Robinson, 1997; Cunningham et al., 1998), mentoring(Topping and Ehly, 1998; Frisz, 1999) and counselling-based approaches (Cartwright, 1996;Naylor, 2000).

Befriending is usually described as an approach that builds on the natural helping skills thatyoung people learn through the processes of everyday interaction with friends and the family.In some cases this help is practical, for example running after-school clubs where studentsoffer companionship and activities to peers who would otherwise be miserable and alone; inothers, befriending involves training in active listening, assertiveness and leadership toenable peer supporters to offer direct support to peers in distress. Mediation/conflict resolution

Peer support 455

methods train young people to defuse interpersonal disagreements among peers, includingbullying, racist name-calling, fighting and quarrelling. The approach is ‘‘no-blame’’ and theaim is that each disputant comes away from the mediation with a positive ‘‘win–win’’experience and the sense that the outcome is fair to both sides. Mentoring involves asupportive one-to-one relationship between a younger student (the mentee) and a moreexperienced student (the mentor). The mentor acts as a role model and aims to promoteheightened aspirations, to offer positive reinforcement and open-ended support, and toprovide an arena in which to develop a problem-solving stance towards important life-spandevelopment issues, such as career choice. Mentoring is often, though not always, targeted atdisadvantaged groups. Counselling-based approaches extend the befriending and mediationapproaches into interventions that are more overtly based on a counselling model. Thetraining is often carried out by a qualified counsellor or by a psychologist. Peer supporters aregiven a wide repertoire of counselling skills and supervision is modelled on professionalcounselling practice (Cowie and Wallace, 2000).

The benefits of peer support

Cowie (1998) conducted interviews with peer supporters and teachers in nine schools in theU.K., two primary and seven secondary, where peer support systems had been wellestablished for at least 1 year (range 1–4 years, mean length of time 2?4 years) as part of aschool anti-bullying policy. The systems included informal befriending schemes, a conflictresolution scheme and counselling-based schemes. Peer supporters and teachers in chargewere unanimously of the opinion that the peer support schemes improved self-confidence,gave young people useful skills, enhanced their responsibility and gave them a usefulopportunity to take action against bullying in their school.

In a larger survey, funded by The Prince’s Trust, of 2313 pupils and 226 teachers in 51secondary schools with an established peer support system in place, Naylor and Cowie (1999)sought the views not only of peer supporters and teachers in charge, but also of users of theschemes in two year groups (Year 7 (Y7), aged 11–12 years, and Year 9 (Y9), aged 13–14years), and teachers not involved in the schemes. Of the 60 pupil users of their school’s peersupport system who responded to the question about how helpful they found it, 82 per centresponded ‘‘very helpful’’ or ‘‘helpful’’ and 18 per cent ‘‘not helpful’’. The three mostcommonly mentioned benefits for users were that the service provides ‘‘somebody to talk toand who listens’’, ‘‘the strength to overcome the problem’’ and that it ‘‘shows that somebodycares’’.

A number of themes emerged in the interview study and survey. The most importantfinding was that peer support systems are used by the victims of bullying, and that they areperceived as helpful by a high proportion of users. Bullied children who tell someoneFwhether parent, teacher or peer supporterFabout being bullied, reported that it helped ‘‘tohave someone to talk to and who listens’’, that the process of talking ‘‘gave them thepsychological strength to overcome the problem’’ and that they appreciated having ‘‘someonewho cared’’ (Naylor and Cowie, 1999).

The studies also found that peer supporters appreciated the opportunity of addressing areal problem in their school community and being given the skills and structures to tackle it.Peer supporters commented favourably on the usefulness of the communication skills thatthey learned in the course of training. Such ‘‘empowerment’’ of young people was perceived

456 H. Cowie et al.

in a positive light by the teachers in charge of the systems, though less so by otheruninvolved colleagues.

Problems in running peer support systems

At the same time, a number of studies have highlighted the existence of problems in therunning of peer support systems. Cowie and Olafsson (2000) found that some adults werereluctant to share power with young people and that some school environments can be soaggressive that the work of peer supporters is undermined. Naylor and Cowie (1999) alsoidentified hostility on the part of some peers. This took the form of ‘‘hoax calls and referrals’’,‘‘adverse comments’’, ‘‘jealousy at all the attention’’ or doubts about the capacity of theservice to offer help. This played a part in the striking gender difference in the balance ofboys and girls at all stages of recruitment, application, training and implementation. Boys’drop-out rate was high apparently ‘‘because of peer pressure from other boys’’ and ‘‘macho’’values in the schools. Negative feelings towards systems of peer support could also preventpotential users from seeking out help through fear of derision or contempt from others. Thebarriers to telling included fear of retaliation (in the case of bullying), fear of peer hostility orindifference and the chosen strategy of ‘‘coping on their own’’. Fear of retaliation from thebully was a theme that emerged most consistently in Cowie and Olafsson (2000).

Present study

SampleFrom The Prince’s Trust study (Naylor and Cowie, 1999), we identified 331 students fromYears 7 and 9 who had reported that they had been bullied that year at school. Forty-two ofthe schools in the earlier study had pupils in both of these year groups and in these schools331 pupils had reported that they had been bullied at school during that year (that is, twoyears earlier); these pupils were now in Y9 (13–14-year olds) and Y11 (15–16-year olds). The42 schools were re-contacted. Six schools refused to participate (one was ‘‘too busy’’, one was‘‘undergoing major building works so it was not convenient’’, one was ‘‘concerned about theethics of the project’’, and three schools gave no reason); in addition, we considered oneschool to be too far away for interviewing only three former victims. This left 35 schoolsparticipating in the present study with 265 formerly victimized pupils. Each of these pupilswas matched where possible with another pupil from the same school, year group, gender andethnicity, who had not reported being a victim in the earlier survey. Some pupils had left theschool during the previous 2 years and some were absent on the day that the researchersvisited the school; two pupils declined to be interviewed. The final sample consisted of 413pupils; 204 former victims (V) and 209 former non-victims (NV).

Structured and semi-structured interviewsAll 413 pupils were individually invited to take part in a structured interview that lastedabout 20–25 min. At the beginning of the interview, anonymity was guaranteed except incases of severe abuse being experienced in which case the interviewer reserved the right todiscuss informing an adult such as the teacher who ran the peer support system. A team offive interviewers piloted the interview schedule and were trained in its administration. One

Peer support 457

part of the interview focussed on the pupils’ perceptions and experiences of the school’s peersupport system and it is this section of the research that is reported here. Additionalinterviews with 34 teachers in charge of their schools’ peer support systems and with 80 (52female and 28 male) peer supporters focussed on perceived benefits to users of the systems ofpeer support; benefits to peer supporters themselves; problems in running the system andhow these were overcome. These interviews were semi-structured with participants free tosay as much as they could about peer support in the school and with the interviewer free tofocus on specific issues as they arose. All of the interviews were tape-recorded.

In essence, the purpose of the present study is to investigate how peer support systemsevolve over time.

Results

The nature of the peer support systemsOne of the most consistent findings was that in the course of the two years since the schoolshad originally been visited by the research team (Naylor and Cowie, 1999), the peer supportsystems had undergone a process of change. In this earlier study, it had been possible tocategorize each system, as befriending, mentoring, conflict resolution, or a counselling-basedapproach. By contrast, in the present study, almost without exception, the systems hadbecome more flexible. The teachers in charge and the peer supporters had developed greatersensitivity to the needs of potential users and a more constructive, problem-solving stancetowards difficulties had evolved. In some schools, there were several peer support systems co-existing side-by-side. Here one teacher explains the process:

It has been self-evolving; I have been auditing it continually, making changes as I go along,responding to feedback from users, their parents, staff and students.

Overall, there was a shift away from formal, counselling-based models to a more informal,befriending approach. Peer supporters were more likely to go out proactively into theplayground at break times or into tutor groups to advertise their service and to workexperientially with younger pupils, for example, in tutor time, whether these pupils hadidentified themselves as having a problem or not. In this way, the peer support services weremore widely available to a larger proportion of the school population and the peer supportershad a more public profile.

Knowledge of the systemThe majority of pupils interviewed showed that they had a good knowledge of their school’speer support system (Table 1). By age and gender groups, at least 94 per cent of pupils whoreported that they had been bullied ‘‘during the present school year’’ knew of the system. Fornon-bullied pupils, the corresponding minimum percentage is 89. Similarly high percentagesof bullied and non-bullied pupils knew the name of the system and could name at least onepeer supporter. Y9 non-bullied girls (80 per cent) were more likely to know at least one peersupporter than Y9 non-bullied boys (56 percent) (w2 = 6?156, po0.013). The majority ofpupils knew how to contact a peer supporter with non-bullied Y9 girls (96 percent) againslightly more likely to know than Y9 non-bullied boys (81 per cent) (w2 = 5.207, po0.023).The majority of pupils at each age group knew accurately how to contact peer supporters and

Table 1 Respondents’ knowledge of their schools’ peer support systems; in percentages

Know, correctly, etc. Y9 Y11

Girls Boys Girls Boys

V NV V NV V NV V NV

That the system, exists 95?1(81)

89?1(55)

98?0(98)

94?6(56)

93?8(48)

97?1(35)

100?0(19)

100?0(20)

Name of the system 88?2(76)

86?3(51)

95?7(92)

91?8(49)

92?3(39)

100(30)

94?4(18)

94?4(18)

At least one peersupporter

76?4(72)

80?0(45)

63?1(84)

55?6(45)

79?5(39)

93?5(31)

82?4(17)

75(16)

How to contactsupporters

84?7(72)

95?8(48)

88?0(83)

80?9(47)

76?9(39)

93?5(31)

100(18)

88?2(17)

Where to findsupporters

79?2(72)

93?5(46)

77?0(87)

72.3(47)

72?5(40)

96?9(32)

88?9(18)

83?3(18)

Kind of problemssystem deals with

47?2(72)

66?0(47)

62?2(90)

55.3(47)

50?0(40)

63.6(33)

50?0(18)

64.7(17)

Note: N in parentheses.

Table 2 Reasons given by bullied pupils for not using peer school’s peer support system; inpercentages

I did not use the sys-tem because y

Y9 Y11

Girls (65) Boys (77) Girls (35) Boys (14)

I received other help 43?1 (28) 40?3 (31) 40?0 (14) 21?4 (3)I didn’t think it would

help10?8 (7) 13?0 (10) 20?0 (7) 7?1 (1)

I tried to sort it outmyself

13?8 (9) 19?5 (15) 20?0 (7) 14?3 (2)

Bullying stopped 13?8 (9) 12?0 (10) 2?9 (1) 50?0 (7)I don’t know 6?2 (4) 7?8 (6) 2?9 (1) 0?0 (0)Other 12?3 (8) 6?5 (5) 14?3 (5) 7?1 (1)

Note: N in parentheses.

458 H. Cowie et al.

where to find them. However, there was less certainty, particularly amongst the bulliedgroups (with the exception of younger boys), about the kind of problems that the systemdeals with.

Use of the systemFor pupils who reported that they had been bullied during the last 2 years, only a smallproportion had actually used the system (7?8 percent girls; 8?5 percent boys) The mostcommonly stated reason for not using the system was that they had received other help.Other reasons included: ‘‘I didn’t think it would help’’, ‘‘The bullying stopped’’ and ‘‘I tried tosort it out myself’’, with a small percentage of other reasons, for example, ‘‘too embarrassing’’or ‘‘didn’t know about it’’ (Table 2).

Table 3 Reported usefulness of the peer support system; percentages by age, gender and victimstatus over the last 2 years

Y9 Y11

V girls(76)

V boys(94)

NV girls(51)

NV boys(50)

V girls(45)

V boys(18)

NV girls(33)

NV boys(19)

No use 5?3 9?6 9?8 2?0 15?6 16?7 6?0 5?3Useful/very

useful89?4 86?2 82?3 94?0 84?4 83?3 94?0 89?4

Don’t know 5?3 4?2 7?7 4?0 0?0 0?0 0?0 5?3

Note: N in paraentheses.

Table 4 Respondents’ reported reasons for thinking as they do about peer support system’susefulness; percentages by age, gender and victim status

Y9 Y11

V girls(72)

V boys(88)

NV girls(46)

NV boys(49)

V girls(45)

V boys(16)

NV girls(32)

NV boys(18)

Negativeresponses

17?2 10?2 12?9 3?6 15?5 18?8 12?5 5?6

Positiveresponses

82?0 83?0 78?3 83?9 79?9 81?3 87?6 88?9

Don’t know 2?8 6?8 2?2 0?0 4?4 0?0 0?0 5?6

Note: N in paraentheses.

Peer support 459

The peer support system was reported to be ‘‘useful’’ or ‘‘very useful’’ by the great majorityof girls and boys in both year groups (whether bullied or not) (Table 3). Overall, 87 per centof bullied pupils said that the system had been useful or very useful to them, the mostfrequent reason given being that if helps to talk to a peer. The reasons given were categorizedby the research team as positive or negative (Table 4). A low percentage had negativethoughts about the systems, for example ‘‘No help’’, ‘‘Not used much’’, ‘‘Afraid of reprisal’’ or‘‘Offputting’’. Positive responses, such as ‘‘Talking to peers helps’’ and ‘‘It is confidential’’,were much more frequent than negative responses.

A considerable majority of boys and girls in both age groups said that they would recommendthe system to a friend in need (Table 5) stating that peer support ‘‘may or would help’’.

Interviews with peer supportersEighty peer supporters from the 35 schools were interviewed about the following aspects oftheir experience of working in the peer support systems:

K the practice of peer support and its perceived benefits for the school and users of thesystem;

K the perceived benefits for peer supporters themselves;K problems in running the system and how they overcame them.

Table 5 Respondents reported recommendation of peer support system to a friend; in percentagesby age, gender and victim status

Y9 Y 11

V girls(76)

V boys(92)

NV girls(50)

NV boys(51)

V girls(43)

V boys(18)

NV girls(33)

NV boys(18)

No help 10?5 16?3 16?0 5?9 30?2 27?8 3?0 5?6May help 7?9 12?0 10?0 13?7 9?3 0?0 6?1 11?1Would help 78?9 69?6 68?0 80?4 60?5 72?2 87?9 77?8Don’t know 2?6 2?2 6?0 0?0 0?0 0?0 3?0 5?6

Note: N in parentheses.

460 H. Cowie et al.

The practice of peer support and its perceived benefits. The peer supportersdemonstrated a clear knowledge of the aims of their services and of the extent of theirexpertise. The most frequently mentioned skill was that of ‘‘active listening’’. All of the peersupporters were convinced of the value to a peer seeking help of being able to talk through aproblem with a person who had been trained to listen:

No matter how small a problem is, it’s a problem, isn’t it? It can really get to someone having problems.

The second most frequently mentioned activity was ‘‘being there for people’’. This took anumber of forms. Sometimes, it referred to being available (for example, being ‘‘on duty’’ in adesignated place); sometimes, it referred to ‘‘being around’’ informally so that people couldapproach them as necessary; sometimes it referred to being a preventative presence in‘‘danger zones’’. This supportive presence around the school was perceived to be helpful toindividual people with problems, but at a wider level was believed by the peer supporters toimprove the quality of life in the school and challenge the dominance of those who bully:

We go into the dining room with Y7s and we keep an eye out even though we are not on duty. Wejust look and if we see anyone upset we go and talk to them, or we start up a conversation, like,even if they are not upset. We start a conversation, you know, just how are you finding the school?

The third most frequently mentioned quality was empathy for a fellow pupil’s feelings andexperience. This included victimized peers but also (in some cases) those who had bullied:

‘‘By talking it through with a student, we get to see the bully’s point of view as well.’’

There was a strong belief that this capacity to take the other person’s point of view(whatever they had done) enhanced good relationships in the school as a whole with the keyquality being the building up of trust. Peer supporters commented that they appeared to bepositive role models for other pupils.

Perceived benefits to peer supporters. The most frequently mentioned benefit wasan enhanced sense of self-confidence, partly from the training in active listening skills thatthey had received and partly from the perception that their practice was effective:

I was really quiet before I trained and I’m not any more.It has given me a lot more confidence.

Peer support 461

The second most frequently mentioned benefit was a gratifying sense of responsibility. Inmost of the groups interviewed, the peer supporters spontaneously spoke of their satisfactionin helping to make the school a safer place:

We are like role models to them.My Dad seems really proud for what I’m doing because he knows that I’ve helpedsomeone and if he knows that I’ve helped one person, he knows I can help other people.

Problems in running the system and how they overcame them. The mostfrequently mentioned issue was about managing the logistics of the service so as to minimizeany stigma that might be associated with taking problems to a peer supporter. Often thisfocussed on the place where peer support should take place, with the majority of peersupporters seeming to favour informal systems as opposed to a special room. There was atension between having a room that was discreetly situated and yet was not so far out of theway that no one ever came for help:

The entrances are sort of hidden so that anyone can slip in and go up the stairs and they don’thave to worry about their friends or anyone else seeing them too much.

In several instances, peer supporters found that other school systems prevented potentialusers from coming to the service. In one instance, the peer supporters’ designated room wason the first floor:

The prefects used to chuck everyone out who came up the stairs and demand to know wherethey were going.

A related concern was about gender. Boys continue to be under-represented among theranks of peer supporters:

It is seen as wimpy, y yeah, they (boys) dropped out � peer pressure.We used to get called ‘‘queer counsellors’’.

But there were also signs that peer supporters were challenging some of thestereotypes:

When I became one, they had only been doing it for over a year and we were all like that (i.e.thought it unmanly) but now all my friends think it is brilliant. There are none of my friends thatcall me names because they know that you are there and you can help them, and I have helped alot of my friends F so it does work. (Boy peer supporter)

Where there was a lack of adult supervision (or the opportunity for debriefing), the peersupporters appeared to suffer:

We never see her (teacher in charge) at Council, do we? All we do is go to her office and pick upthe sheets, all the forms that if we need to fill in we fill in. That is it. We don’t see her. We don’thave regular meetings with her or anything and there is nothing fixed. (Peer supporter)

Interviews with teachersWe interviewed 29 women (81 per cent) and 7 men (19 per cent) in the role of co-ordinatingteachers, a very similar proportion to the original Prince’s Trust survey where the ratio was 80percent women and 20 percent men (Naylor and Cowie, 1999). These participants wereinterviewed about the same issues as the peer supporters.

462 H. Cowie et al.

The practice of peer support and its perceived benefits. Overall, there was a senseof pride that the systems had survived for at least 3 years and had become an established partof the school. This was reflected in the greater acceptance of peer support and the very lowincidence of scepticism on the part of colleagues:

Nobody has said anything negative.Eighty per cent of the pupils are supportive and the vast majority of staff support us.

Some had devised public ways of acknowledging the skill and practice of peer support byhaving prize-givings, the award of certificates or the integration of the training into thePersonal, Social and Health Education curriculum. The fact that the Office for Standards inEducation (OFSTED) schools inspectors invariably commended the systems wasappreciated. Most of all, there was a strongly expressed belief that the work of the peersupporters was beneficial to vulnerable pupils:

The victims of bullying are happy to tell other pupils. ... We had the educational psychologist doa survey from one year to the next, and the difference between the two years was that peoplewould report the bullying whereas right at the beginning they wouldn’t.We got media attention through Kilroy (a UK talk show television programme); seniormanagement are now completely supportive and funding comes from external sources.

Perceived benefits to peer supporters. Like the peer supporters themselves, theteachers in charge of the systems reported heightened self-confidence and a sense ofusefulness and purpose:

They (peer supporters) are encouraged to take a responsible role in school with younger pupilsand I think they get a benefit to their self-esteem and experience. Some of them get a tangiblereward in that they are doing the Duke of Edinburgh Award and this counts towards that. Theother benefit is that they get the training that we give.

The teachers commented on the fact that the experience of being trained in activelistening and putting the training into practice made the peer supporters better citizens intheir school community:

Peer supporters act as radars. They are seen; they are identified by younger people; they areapproachable; they are accessible. So their presence is preventative.

Problems in running the system and how they overcame them. Like the peersupporters, teachers mentioned various problems that arose in the everyday management ofthe systems. However, there was a strong sense that these problems could be overcome.Many teachers described at length the strategies that they had developed to enhance use ofthe system, to increase ease of access and to make the most effective use of the trained peersupporters:

We have re-defined several things. We don’t now have four people on duty; we just have two. Wedon’t cover the whole of the lunch hour, we just have one half-hour session.

Most teachers did not appear to be recommending the application of one particular modelof peer support but rather to suggest that it was necessary to adapt to the particular needs of

Peer support 463

the school and its pupils. In some schools, it was appropriate to set aside a designated room;in others, it was more useful to adopt an informal approach. Whatever the strategy, the keyto success appeared to lie in the process of flexible monitoring and clear observation of theneeds of the potential users. There was an awareness of the need to carry out some form ofresearch to identify the problems that existed in the school. In this, there was a growingappreciation of the role that the peer supporters themselves might play.

The most difficult problem remained that of gender as reported by Naylor and Cowie(1999). However, in contrast to this earlier study, in almost every school there were signsthat the teachers were thinking constructively and optimistically about how to overcome it:

We have found that a lot of the mentees are boys, and that was one of our aims.In the buddy group, the information point which is computer-based has attracted a lot of boyswho are also very happy to use their skills to support people with problems. y They would beinterested to know that we are setting up our own website.

Significantly, none of the teachers interviewed commented on the gender imbalance in theteachers who ran peer support systems. Yet there is evidence that, where the balance is evenand when care is taken to make the service attractive to boys as well as girls, the pupils areless likely to criticize boys for becoming peer supporters. Here, one male teacher in chargedescribes the process:

It wasn’t felt cool to be seen to use the peer support service (i.e. before when it was ‘‘counsellingbased’’). Peer mentors are seen differently. They are more integrated into the fabric of the Y7tutor group. They were at camp, they were there at lunchtimes, they are there in the life of theschool and they are now more accepted and kids go to them naturally, like an older brother orsister. y That way it works much better than the peer counselling system that we had.

Others more specifically mentioned the impact of orienting the system away from theemotions:

Now, in contrast to the past, there can be more boys than girls. It helped when it was curriculumsupport. Boys could do that because it was about the curriculum, not the emotions.

Discussion and conclusion

Where pupil respondents were asked the same or similar questions in the earlier (Naylor andCowie, 1999) and present study, comparison of the findings can be made.

Knowledge of the systemIt is encouraging that the great majority of pupils, bullied and non-bullied alike, know somuch about how to access their schools’ peer support systems. By comparison with boys,particularly those in Y9, girls’ knowledge of the systems, who the peer supporters are and howto contact them is better. This may be related to the evidence that has consistently comefrom many studies (for example, Hartup, 1983; Wong and Csikzentmihalyi, 1991;Hinde, 1996; Osterman et al., 1997) which suggests that girls are more in tune than boysare with their social worlds. There is also evidence that boys catch up with girlsin this respect throughout the adolescent years (Eisenberg and Miller, 1992), which mayexplain why in the present study, differences between girls and boys have been found for Y9but not Y11.

464 H. Cowie et al.

Use of the systemIn the earlier study, 82 per cent of users of the peer support systems said that they had foundthem ‘‘helpful’’ or ‘‘very helpful’’. In the present study, 87 per cent of users said so. Thisdifference may be directly attributable to improvements over time in the selection, trainingand supervision of the peer supporters; the systems may now actually be providing betterservices to users.

In the earlier study, one-fifth of bullied pupils used the peer support system in comparisonwith 8 per cent in the present study. We can only make inferences about changes in the ethosof participating schools based on the responses given by respondents. It seems likely that peersupport systems have the effect of improving the social climate of schools in which they exist(Abu-Rasain and Williams, 1999; Ortega and del Rey, 1999). If this is so, it may be that overtime, peer support systems help to develop in their schools an ‘‘ethos of care’’ in which itbecomes common practice, by comparison with other schools, for pupils to share theirproblems with others. In this way, the formal purpose of the system would become lessimportant. This suggestion is supported by the finding of the present study that of the bulliedpupils who said that they had not used the peer support system, around 40 per cent said thatthis was because they had received help from someone else.

The present study suggested that peer support systems are now accepted and valued fortheir contribution to the school. Pupils overwhelmingly state that they like the systems ofpeer support, they are familiar with them, would use them if they needed to and wouldrecommend them to a friend in need. Teachers in charge of systems report that theircolleagues are, for the most part, extremely supportive of the systems. There are also externalsigns of acknowledgement from, for example, OFSTED reports and from parent groups.Systems of peer support are no longer a novelty as they were when we initially reported theresults of The Prince’s Trust survey. There was a strong sense in the present study ofconfidence in the systems and belief in their usefulness. This is confirmed by Naylor et al.(2001) who noted that in schools with a peer support service in place, in comparison withschools where there is no service (Smith and Shu, 2000), fewer bullied pupils tell no one oftheir distress and a larger number of bullied pupils tell another person (whether a fellowpupil, a parent or a teacher).

Teachers and pupils involved in running the systems reported on their achievementswith a sense of pride. They also demonstrated evidence that the systems had evolved overtime and that the people involved were confident enough to respond to perceived needs oftheir school. There was a greater sense of ownership of the systems and signs of a problem-solving stance to difficulties that might arise in the implementation of peer support.The response to challenges arose from careful monitoring and evaluation of the systems andtheir use.

There was no one way of running peer support systems. The important ingredient forsuccess seemed to be that the teachers in charge and the peer supporters were flexible andcreative in the ways of targeting pupils in need. This might take the form of proactivelyseeking out users or it might take the form of setting up a special room as a base. Whateverform it took, it was important that the people involved were actively involved in the system’sdevelopment.

Overall, however, there was a trend away from counselling-based systems to more informalbefriending systems. Both teachers and peer supporters for the most part expressed apreference for the informal models. There were, however, some outstanding exceptions tothis where counselling-based services worked extremely well. In these cases, there was always

Peer support 465

a strong input from an experienced counsellor at all stages of the implementation of theservice from selection and training to supervision.

Gender remained as issue with boys still greatly under-represented in the ranks of peersupporters. This confirms the findings made by Olweus and Endresen (1998) who foundsignificant differences between boys and girls in the capacity to respond with empathytowards a fellow pupil as described in a vignette. Both boys and girls responded with moreempathy towards girls than boys in distress. Girls showed a straightforward pattern ofdevelopment, with an increase in empathic concern towards both girls and boys. Boys, bycontrast, showed a similar pattern with regard to girls but a decreasing trend in empathicresponsiveness towards peers of their own sex. One possible explanation suggested by Olweusand Endresen is that the male decrease in empathic concern for other boys may reflect anincreasing identification with a masculine role and a desire to live up to ideals associated withmasculinity. By contrast, boys’ increasing empathic responsiveness towards girls indicates thatit is acceptable to be protective towards girls since it is in harmony with the masculine role.From our analysis of the interviews with peer supporters, we found that the boys in thepresent study showed awareness of the threat to their masculinity involved in participating incaring activities such as peer support, but some felt confident enough in themselves tochallenge the stereotype, and in this there was evidence of a shift in attitude in contrast tothe earlier studies (Naylor and Cowie, 1999; Cowie, 2000).

Some teachers too, were more determined to recruit boys by thinking about the ways inwhich training could be made more attractive to them and by, for example, involving them increating websites, using computers and being involved in forms of peer support thatconcerned mentoring and advice giving. Teachers, however, did not spontaneously discussthe effect of the under-representation of male teachers in peer support management on therecruitment of boys to the services. Perhaps the feminine role in adulthood continues toencompass empathetic responsiveness while the masculine role does not.

In the light of these findings, it could be argued that peer support is an area greatly in needof further rigorous research. In particular, the gender issue could be investigated more fullywith regard to those systems that are successful in recruiting boy peer supporters and maleteachers and, at a wider theoretical level, with regard to sex differences in the developmentof empathy during the adolescent years. The concept of peer support is wide ranging atpresent. There is a need to discover more precisely the relationship between different types ofpeer support and the outcomes for users and peer supporters.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all of the pupils who participated and to their schools, to Lucia Berdondini,Judith Dawkins and Rosario Ortega for help in planning and data collection. This researchwas supported financially in part by the University of London Central Research Fund, theUniversity of Surrey Roehampton Research Fund, and the European Commission TMRProject ‘Nature and Prevention of Bullying’ (contract number CT97-0139).

References

Abu-Rasain, M. H. M. and Williams, D. (1999). Peer counselling in Saudi Arabia. Journal ofAdolescence, 22, 493–502.

466 H. Cowie et al.

Boulton, M., Trueman, M., Chau, C., Whiteland, C. and Amatya, K. (1999). Concurrent andlongitudinal links between friendship and peer victimization: implications for befriendinginterventions. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 461–466.

Cartwright, N. (1996). Combating bullying in school: the role of peer helpers. In PeerCounselling in Schools: A Time to Listen, Cowie, H. and Sharp, S. (Eds). London: David Fulton,pp. 97–105.

Children’s Rights Development Unit (CRDU) (1994). UK Agenda for Children. CRDU.Cowie, H. (1998). Perspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of peer support against

bullying. Educational Research and Evaluation, 4, 108–125.Cowie, H. (2000). Bystanding or standing by: gender issues in coping with bullying in English schools.

Aggressive Behavior, 2, 85–97.Cowie, H. and Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a

school with high levels of aggression. School Psychology International, 21(1), 79–95.Cowie, H. and Wallace, P. (2000). Peer Support in Action. London: Sage.Craig, W. and Pepler, D. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: an observational study.

Exceptionality Education Canada, 5, 81–95.Cunningham, C., Cunningham, L., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J. and Zacharias, R. (1998). The

effects of primary division, student-mediated conflict resolution programs on playgroundaggression. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(5), 653–662.

Demetriades, A. (1996). Children of the storm: peer partnership. In Peer Counselling in Schools: A Timeto Listen, Cowie, H. and Sharp, S. (Eds). London: David Fulton, pp. 64–72.

Eisenberg, N. and Miller, P. A. (1992). The development of prosocial moral reasoning. In Child Rearing:Influence on Prosocial and Moral Development, Janssens, J. M. A. M. and Gerris, J. R. M. (Eds).Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, pp. 31–55.

Frisz, R. (1999). Multicultural peer counseling: counseling the multicultural student. Journal ofAdolescence, 22, 515–526.

Fry, D. P. and Fry, C. P. (1997). Culture and conflict resolution models: exploring alternativesto violence. In Cultural Variations in Conflict Resolution, Fry, D. P. and Bjorkqvist, K. (Eds).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 9–24.

Hartup, W. P. (1983). Peer relationships. In Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 4, Socialization, Personalityand Social Development, Hetherington, E. M. (Ed). Mussen, P. H. (Series Ed.). New York: Wiley, pp.103–196.

Hinde, R. (1996). Gender differences in close relationships. In Social Interaction and PersonalRelationships, Miell, D. and Dallos, R. (Eds). London: Sage Publications, pp. 324–335.

Menesini, E., Benelli, B. and Cowie, H. (2002). The evaluation of peer support in an Italian classroom.Aggressive Behavior. (in press)

Naylor, P. (2000). Elliott Durham School’s Anti-bullying Peer Support System: a case study of goodpractice in a secondary school. In Peer Support in Action, Cowie, H. and Wallace, P. (Eds). London:Sage Publications, pp. 36–48.

Naylor, P. and Cowie, H. (1999). The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging schoolbullying: the perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 467–479.

Naylor, P. and Cowie, H. (2000). The role of peer support systems in education for citizenship. TheSchool Field, XI, (1–2), 131–142.

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., and del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in responseto being bullied. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 6, 114–120.

Olweus, D. and Endresen, I. M. (1998). The importance of sex-of-stimulus object: age trends and sexdifferences in empathic responsiveness. Social Development, 7, 370–388.

Ortega, R. and del Rey, R. (1999). The use of peer support in the S.A.V.E. project. Paper presentedat the IXth European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Spetses, Greece, September1–5.

Osterman, K., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Landau, S., Fraczek, A. and Pastorelli, C. (1997). Sexdifferences in styles of conflict resolution: a developmental and cross-cultural study with data fromFinland, Israel, Italy and Poland. In Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution, Fry, D. and Bjorkqvist,K. (Eds). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 185–197.

Sharp, S. and Cowie, H. (1998). Understanding and Supporting Children in Distress. London: Sage.

Peer support 467

Smith, P. K. and Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: findings from a survey inEnglish schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood, 7, 193–212.

Stacey, H. and Robinson, P. (1997). Let’s Mediate. Bristol: Lucky Duck Publications.Topping, K. and Ehly, S. (1998). Peer-assisted Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Wong, M. M. and Csikzentmihalyi, M. (1991). Affiliation motivation and daily experience: some issues

on gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 154–164.