Music as a Resource Against Bullying and Cyberbullying: Intervention in two Centers in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The present manuscript reports a intervention study using music and value education to reduce bullying and cyberbullying among adolescents. 200 Spanish adolescents were distributed across 3 study groups: one control group and intervention groups in two different education centers. The results are quite mixed, but lead the authors to conclude that the intervention is effective even in the control group.

Generally, the type of intervention is innovative by using music education. However, I have major concerns about the manuscript in its present state: the statistical analyses are not sound, the manuscript does not follow the usual structure, the background is missing many relevant aspects and does not provide a theoretical basis for the intervention. The language is often absolutistic and does not account for the probabilistic nature of many of the research results (of the reviewed studies and the presented study itself). The conclusions drawn from the results are speculative and no alternative explanations are presented. Please find my detailed comments below.

--- Abstract ---

I wouldn't call bullying and cyberbullying methods of aggression, but they are rather subtypes of aggressive behavior, which are distinct from other forms due to certain characteristics, especially the repetition of the behavior.

I also recommend, instead of stating the program that was used for statistical analysis, to mention the statistical model or analysis that was implemented.

--- Introduction ---

Stating that ALL students take part in aggressive conflicts might be too simplified. Many are likely bystanders, but there also is a number that does not notice the conflict. So please rephrase.

"Students who suffer bullying are also victims of cyberbullying, due to the opportunities that new technologies offer aggressors to inflict such damage on the victims." Again, this statement is too absolute. Yes, there is overlap between bullying and cyberbullying and more students who are involved in cyberbullying are also involved in bullying than the other way around. Not every student involved in bullying is also involved in cyberbullying. Please rephrase.

Please provide references for the claims in lines 51-54.

Please explain in more detail what is meant in lines 57-59. This seems a bit out of context and the conclusion presented there is not proven with research results. Which variable influence the violent processes? And what do educationals centers have to do with them?

Please try not to use alarmist language as in lines 60-64. Please use a more scientific and neutral tone of language.

Why is descriptive data from the study being presented in the introduction? This does not conform with the usual structure of research publications. Unless these are data from a different study. But if they are data from the present study, they should be reported in the results section. There should be other literature on the situation in Spain that you can and should cite. The parts reporting your own results should be moved to the results section.

The study being cited about deaths at school (Loredo Abdalá et al., 2008) is that the original source? Or does it report the study of Anderson et al. (2001; doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.21.2695). If so, I urgently recommend to use the primary refenrence. Moreover, this study does not say that ALL perpetrators of homicides were victims of school violence, but that they were twice as likely to have been victims of bullying. Again, as already recommended above: please be more careful in your phrasing so as not to make absolutistic statements. The kind of research presented and implemented here is always based on probabilities.

“Emotional intelligence” should be defined and supported by a reference. Usually, “emotional intelligence” is a term from popular psychology. The concept described here is usually referred to as emotional competence. 

“For this reason, we chose to make an intervention based on music and the reinforce it with talks about human values.” From the background presented it does not become apparent why music and value discussions are the method of choice here.

There is no rationale given for the assumed differences between the public education center and the semi-private one. Also, what is meant with “will reflect higher grades of bullying”?

--- Methods ---

I recommend to remove the paragraph in lines 158-161. This type of writing and reasoning is not common in empirical publications.

I do not think the answer categories are quite fitting for the cyberbullying instrument. What would the frequency be for the answer category “always”? What is the reference frame? What does it mean when someone answers that he/she has always witnessed cyberbullying? This should be addressed in the discussion/limitations.

Please describe both parts of the intervention more concisely. The way it is written now it requires the reader to have previous knowledge.

Why were repeated-measures t-tests used instead of repeated-measure ANOVA? This would have allowed to test the groups simultaneously and to prevent alpha error accumulation.

--- Results ---

I find the statistics reported in the text hard to understand. The depiction of the standard deviation does not follow the APA style that is commonly used in psychological publications.

--- Discussion ---

I think it is quite speculative to attribute the changes in the control group to the intervention, especially attributing greater effects in the CG to the intervention. Please provide alternative explanations.

How was the conclusion reached that aggressors did not want to identify themselves? Which other data do you have to know from that they are aggressors?

“when a victim is harassed in person, he is harassed at the same time online”. Again, no, this is not true in the way it is stated here. This is only true for a certain number of people. Not everyone who is bullied is also cyberbullied.

The discussion is very descriptive. I recommend to add more references to previous research and to add more (alternative) explanations. I also recommend to add more rationale for the effect of music, there are no theoretical models for this in the manuscript so far.

It also very difficult to try to explain the differences between the two intervention groups since there were only two groups with one subsample each. The different results could well be coincidence. There are many factors that might be responsible for this.

The authors use too much causal language. The fear of reprisal can be an assumption, but I do not see that the results proved this. Where does this deduction come from?

“Although the sample of students was significant” What is meant by this?

I recommend to add sample size as a limitation. 200 students in 3 study conditions is not much especially regarding a behavior with comparably low prevalence rates as compared to other psychological variables.

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer 1, for your comments and recommendations.

We have made most of the requested changes.

We have added several sentences to the Introduction, stating the reasons why we conducted the musical intervention that forms the basis of this research. This justification is also reflected later in the conclusions, where we have added links to substantiate it.

We have included some bibliographical sources which support the statements made.

Reviewer 2 Report

This was an interesting paper to review and I believe has merit.

The english writing needs some work, some areas are not very academically written and do not sound professional.

I believe the intro needs more justification for why this research was conducted, why is it important?

links with previous research needs to be established further in the conclusion

future directions also needs to be discussed in greater detail in the conclusion. What does this research mean? What can future work do?

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer 2, for your comments and recommendations.

Followiong your considerations, we have introduced the social learning theory to the introduction. As Shafer and Silverman (2013) say, "many researchers designed programs that utilized elements of social learning theory by creating a sociocultural environment that did not support nor reinforce bullying thus leading to long - term change". 

In this way, we state the reasons why we conducted the musical intervention that forms the basis of this research. This justification is also reflected later in the conclusions, where we have added a link to substantiate it.

We have also added a paragraph on our prospective research in the near future.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors are respected in the field and have a good idea to explore prevention/intervention with music. This paper is in need of establishing more theoretical support. They later say in the article: "As Shafer and Silverman (2013) have shown, intervention programs provided with music will always be more effective and motivating than interventions that do not include music" 

I would introduce this point in the beginning of the article and expand discussion of the study, more importantly, the theory used in this Shafer study was social learning, could this be applicable, provide a lens in understanding the difference in music theory in the experimental group? Whatever framework that is used, introduce in literature review and let it guide the study and the results and the discussion. 

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer 3, for your comments and recommendations.

In response to your points, we have added to the Justification the point by Shafer and Silverman (2013), stating the reasons why we conducted the musical intervention that forms the basis of this research. This justification is also reflected later in the conclusions, where we have added a link to substantiate it.

The social learning can be applicable and it would be the project for future research.

Reviewer 4 Report

The text concerns the phenomenon of cyberbullying among Spanish adolescents (younger adolescents). The article was designed in the current of quantitative research - a pedagogical experiment. The phenomenon of cyberbullying is a current challenge for people involved in the prevention of risky behavior on the Internet. I have some comments to make:
- in the introduction you suggest that "Cyberbullying is usually an extension of bullying." This is not a simple dependence. We know such results that it actually works that way (e.g. Pyzalski, Dooley), but it is worth to develop this thread and add quotations from confirmatory studies;
- in the introductory part, please add, recalling the result: and the year of the research and the sample on which the data was collected will make it a little easier for the reader to understand;
- it is worth adding a clear definition of cyberbullying, as there are discrepancies. Very often cyberbullying is confused with cyber aggression;
- in the introduction, do you have a lot of information, for example about emotional intelligence (p.3), or is such information certainly useful as a theoretical framework for your research project?
- on page 4 you define - describing the levels of cyberbullying etc. These levels should be defined in advance in the theoretical part.
- Why did you focus on classes 6 and 7? Is there anything very special about this developmental period? It is worthwhile to develop this thread a little as a justification in the introduction.
- Hypothesis 1 is unclear (what kind of intervention)? This is an important variable in your research. Unfortunately it is not described, it is not defined in introduction.
- It is worth adding other psychometric properties describing the Cyberbullying Test. Internal consistency is not enough.
- Why did you use a 4-step licker scale instead of the classic 5-step scale?
- there is some inaccuracy in the description of the experiment. I'm not sure which indicator to the variable intervention was more important - a discussion about values or playing instruments?
The experiment as a complex operation seems interesting but there are many methodological inaccuracies in your text. Nevertheless, I congratulate you and keep my fingers crossed for referring to my questions.

Author Response

Thank you, Reviewer 4, for your comments and recommendations.

We have made the requested changes.

We have included the bibliographical sources which support the statements made, "Cyberbullying is usually an extension of bullying".

We have also added the pre-test research data, as well as a definition of bullying and cyberbullying.

The information regarding Emotional Intelligence is important for our research as students who are the aggressors usually have poorer social skills and therefore a lower level of emotional intelligence, and with music we aim to increase both of these skills to reduce the rates of bullying and cyberbullying. We are not working specifically on Emotional Intelligence itself, but it is very closely linked to the skills which students need to obtain in order to reduce instances of aggression.

The "levels of cyberbullying" has been corrected. We do not define levels of aggression.

Adolescents in the 6th and 7th grade are a sample used by way of example. We simply had access to these specific classes.

The text clarifies that the tool consists of two scales, one of which collects information about bullying and the other cyberbullying, and the dimensions, reliability and construct validity of each scale has been described.

We used the 4-point scale to respect the original scale on the questionnaire, the validity and reliability of which are excellent and the instrument is renowned worldwide.

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the text you sent in for the review. The study is interesting, but I still have methodological reservations. The assumptions are partly clear, i.e. the separation of two groups: experimental and control and stratification (different types of schools). However, I still do not know how the components of the educational programme (e.g. self-regulation, perspective taking, emotion management, problem solving, communication skills, and friendship skills mentioned in the introduction) influence the phenomenon of cyberbullying. Simplifying in relation to the title of the article - what is hidden (what indicators) behind the music programme. Using other words, which of the factors of the music program (educational, prophylactic) actually reduce the scale of cyberbullying. Of course, the attempt does not give grounds for generalization. The assumptions of the study are good but there is no clear measurement of the variables in the experiment (educational part).

Author Response

Thank you reviewer 4 for your annotations.

Music is a combination of sounds, organised through certain elements such as rhythm, melody, harmony, texture, form, beats, pulse, accents, tones, speed,m phrasing... which come together to create a whole that expresses emotions, ideas and feelings. Musicians have to express this successfully in their performances. To achieve a good performance or interpretation, it is essential to follow the general rules of music and the conductor´s or tutor´s instructions.

Musical performance is not easy; it requires a lot of work to achieve the final result. Practising music often creates expectations that are difficult to attain. In addition, the tutor os director of the group will set certain musical rules or guidelines that must be accepted and followed. All of this can lead to the development of emotions such as anxiety, frustration and anger, which must be properly managed in order to obtain the best results.

Music requires all participants in the group to self-regulate their emotions to achieve a unified version of the musical piece, in accordance with what the composer wanted to achieve. This requires following, accepting and respecting the conductor´s instructions, who has studied and analysed the work and its composer.

Musical work within a group also requires musicians to empathise with someone who is doing it incorrectly and use a player performing correctly as an example; this means it is up to the players to identify their emotions in their personal relationships with others and with their physical environment, in this case, music. With music, students learn to manage their emotions, improve standards of respect among participants and therefore harmony and teamwork within a group.

In addition to this, thanks to music, students will be able to develop verbal and non-verbal communication skills. During rehearsal and performance, the conductor often communicates through non-verbal language, directing the group through gestures that indicate the required interpretation.

As a result of all of the above, music serves as a means of problem-solving; through self-regulation, the student learns to manage their emotions (anxiety, frustration, anger), which otherwise could have led to a form of active violence. Musical work within a group improves people´s self-esteem, which is a very important factor as it increases the self-esteem of those who have been victims of violence, allowing them to manage the problem in a more positive way. Similarly, the self-regulation of emotions among those who have been passive bystanders to instances of violence will help them to be more empathetic towards victims.

We have included some sentences in the document as clarification.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The study is interesting. It proposes the development of soft skills, which, according to the authors, contribute to the minimization of cyberbullying. In my opinion, there were many more intermediate variables in the experiment, which unfortunately were not measured. This is a certain difficulty that the authors of this type of research are struggling with. Congratulations on the experiment. Perhaps your results will be intresting to experts who create prophylactic programs.