Effectiveness of the FHaCE Up! Program on School Violence, School Climate, Conflict Management Styles, and Socio-Emotional Skills on Secondary School Students

Abstract

Communicative and socio-emotional skills are associated with conflict resolution and, thus, school violence prevention. However, without using a combination of techniques in peaceful conflict resolution, it is difficult to ensure such a relationship. The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program, an intervention based on training in communication and socio-emotional skills, as well as conflict resolution, using a collaborative style and mediation skills to reduce school violence and improve the school climate. This training developed in two consecutive stages. The design of the study was quasi-experimental, in which 561 students (aged from 11 to 17 years) from two public secondary schools in Valencia, Spain, participated. Convenience sampling was assigned to the experimental group (N = 264) and the control group (N = 297). The results showed a significant improvement in school violence and school climate perception, as well as communication and socio-emotional skills, in the experimental group after the intervention implementation. It is concluded that the FHaCE up! program significantly positively affected teenagers’ perception of violence and school climate.

1. Introduction

1.1. Untreated Conflicts Can Lead to School Violence

School violence is a pervasive and persistent problem that can be defined as episodes of any type of aggression in the school community. This was revealed to be a major issue in secondary schools [1,2] and is detrimental to cultural, social, and environmental sustainability [3]. Aggressive behavior can be understood, depending on its motivational underpinnings, as an impulsive reaction to a provocation (reactive aggression) or an aggression that is instrumentally driven to obtain certain benefits (proactive aggression) [4]. Considering that both forms of aggression “are not mutually exclusive and frequently co-occur” [5] (p. 2), they can both be considered as peer violence and tackled by conflict resolution training. Following this statement, aggressive reactions have been related to a lack of problem-solving abilities in adolescents with anger management issues [6]. Individuals with lower levels of emotional intelligence were more likely to use forcefulness and avoidance strategies in conflicts rather than collaborative strategies [7], as this style necessitates a great concern for both oneself and others involved in the conflict [8]. Additionally, the tendency to engage in verbal or physical aggression in a conflict can be associated with a feeling of control over the situation, which causes adolescents to think the problem can be solved using violence [9]. For that reason, when aggressive behaviors are not tackled on time, they may be reinforced and used to gain more power over others [10], which can lead to a spiral of events, as those “who prioritize public demonstrations of their social power, popularity, and status increase their aggressive behavior over time” (p. 312). Furthermore, adolescents with lower levels of self-control, an important factor in anger management, are more likely to engage in violent and risky conduct rather than socially desirable behaviors [11]. It is widely considered that aggressive behaviors at school can increase the probability of bullying [12], a violent social phenomenon commonly defined as systematic, unprovoked, and contextualized abuse within an imbalance of power [13,14]. Regarding this phenomenon, there are several negative consequences that affect those involved at an interpersonal level. For instance, victims have higher risks of suffering from suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, depression and anxiety, psychosomatic problems, and psychosocial adjustment difficulties, among others [11]. Thus, it is convenient to tackle aggressive behaviors with conflict resolution strategies using a collaborative management style to prevent school violence.

In addition, the non-peaceful management of conflicts not only has negative impacts at the individual and/or interpersonal level but also at the organizational level, such as by conditioning structural violence that deteriorates the school climate [15,16]. Therefore, it is recommended that the entire educational community gains extensive knowledge about the nature of conflicts and the ability to manage them peacefully to create a safer environment [17,18]. All of this is promoted by the restorative justice approach [19,20]. Furthermore, a negative school climate or a less safe environment, as both terms are used interchangeably [21], is associated with serious consequences for adolescents, such as poor academic performance, mental health problems, and participation in delinquent and/or criminal acts [22,23]. Additionally, school coexistence issues can become more complex when teachers feel unable to manage students’ behaviors with punitive discipline, causing burn-out and professional malpractice and leading to teachers abandoning their responsibility to maintain a safe and positive environment in school [24,25]. According to Payne and Welch [26], the use of punitive discipline when students misbehave, such as expulsion policies, threats, and other harsh sanctions, rather than a restorative justice approach, “not only fails to reduce school violence and misbehavior, but it may actually increase the frequency and intensity of these incidents”(p. 66). Thus, a restorative justice approach in schools, based on awareness of one’s behavior and repairing the harm caused using social and emotional abilities, activates the school community´s understanding of conflict and empowers them to create a peaceful and positive climate [27]. Furthermore, this approach can also help to create a democratic and participatory school community [28].

Regarding school climate, some studies have found that schools characterized by strong and consistent values and student support are associated with greater student engagement, which also leads to academic achievement, which is another important factor to consider in the analysis of school welfare [29]. In addition, student support can lead to fewer episodes of peer aggression and bullying, as they lead to a major safety response from school officials [30]. Contrarily, when students do not receive enough support from their teachers, they are more reluctant to report or talk about possible abuse, generating fewer safe environments. This could encourage aggressive behaviors and bullying [31]. Therefore, managing the school climate is an important action when preventing school violence and bullying [32].

Regarding bullying, the latest PISA report [33] stated that 23% of students reported being bullied at least several times a month. The latest bullying report in Spain [34], using the data provided by the ANAR Foundation from September 2020 to August 2021, stated that there were a total of 1911 reported bullying cases, 67.1% of them in public secondary schools.

Given the seriousness and prevalence of bullying, there are some international antibullying programs to spotlight, focused on training in socio-emotional skills and conflict resolution skills to reduce school violence, as shown in the present study (

Table 1. International Antibullying Programs.

Name	Year 1	Country	Participants	Variables
Second Step Program [35]	1997	USA	N= 966 6th grade (179) 7th grade (561) 8th grade (226)	Empathy, social problem solving, and anger management
Restorative Whole-school Approach [36]	2011	Hong Kong	N = 1480 students (12 a 14 years)	Restorative practices Empathy Socio-emotional skills
Kiva [37]	2013	Finland	N = 16,503 students (13–15 years)	Conflict resolution skills Bystanders’ behaviors
INCLUSIVE [38]	2015	UK	N = 1017 students (12–13 years) 20 teachers	Restorative practices Socioemotional skills
Dutch Skills for Life [39]	2016	Netherlands	N = 1394 students (13–16 years)	Social skills Conflict resolution skills Healthy lifestyle

¹ Programs chronologically ordered.

).

Some antibullying programs in the Spanish framework are listed below (

Table 2. Spanish Antibullying Programs.

Name	Year 1	Participants	Variables
ARCO [40]	2007	N = 347 students (12–17 years)	Conflict resolution skills Socio-emotional skills
ConRed [41]	2012	N = 893 students (11–19 years)	Cybersecurity strategies
Cyberprogram [42]	2016	N = 176 students (13–15 years)	Conflict management styles Cyberbullying knowledge Socio-emotional skills
TEI [43]	2019	N = 2057 students (11–16 years)	Peer tutoring strategies Socio-emotional skills

¹ Programs chronologically ordered.

).

All the programs cited above are school-based interventions for the whole school community, which demonstrated positive results in reducing bullying and cyberbullying through socio-emotional skills and conflict resolution skills training, among other variables. However, it is unknown whether the socio-emotional skills that were taught were specifically focused on a collaborative management style for conflict resolution in order to reduce school violence. A double training, first in addressing certain socio-emotional skills to achieve a more collaborative conflict management style, and secondly implementing a peer-mediation conflict resolution program based on restorative school justice, could promote the internalization of the collaborative management style when coping with daily peer conflict, as it leads to awareness of the harm and focuses on repairing this [27,44,45].

Although these school-based interventions were effective in reducing traditional bullying and cyberbullying, a recent meta-analysis suggested that all of them showed small effect sizes, identifying the short duration of the programs (from 5 weeks to 1.5 years) as an important factor to address. Thus, commitment to long-term antibullying strategies after the intervention ends could guarantee the effectiveness of the programs [46]. According to this, the involvement of school staff in these educational interventions could become an important factor in ensuring the long-term effectiveness of antibullying programs [47]. Teachers’ feelings of self-efficiency in dealing with student misbehavior can be crucial for both training and ensuring conflict resolution skills in the long-term educational life [48].

Socio-emotional skills, considered very useful tools when facing various conflict situations, can reduce the impact of negative environments and enhance positive youth development [49]. Moreover, socio-emotional skills such as empathy have shown a negative relationship with the perpetration of bullying [50] and a positive association with the school climate and social adjustment [20]. Still, there is hardly any literature that evaluates the impact of conflict management styles on reducing school violence and improving the school climate or psychological school adjustment [9,45], as addressed in the present study. Nevertheless, there is peaceful conflict management in the form of peer mediation, which uses a collaborative style to reduce school violence and can prevent bullying [51]. As the collaborative management style necessitates a high level of concern for both oneself and the other party involved in the conflict, it is the style that best meets the interests of both parties in a conflict [8]. Since self-assertion and willingness are required to cooperate with others, it is necessary to acquire communicative and social skills to actively listen as well as to assert one´s own needs or point of view [45]. Adolescents trained in problem-solving abilities can tackle daily peer conflict peacefully and stop using violence as a strategy, improving the school climate [27,49].

According to some studies, the present research is partly based on restorative practices, which are designed to improve problem-solving skills that reduce aggressive behaviors among students and increase emotional awareness [9,20]. Following the conflict resolution model of Davidson and Wood [52], skills such as cooperation, appropriate assertiveness, active listening, and brainstorming could engage both parties in a win–win solution. Since aggressive behaviors can cause conflicts that must be solved to reduce school violence and prevent bullying [53], most of those skills were considered in the present research, as one of the research premises was that the higher students’ scores for socio-emotional skills and collaborative management style, the better the school climate. This premise also follows the idea that improving students’ problem-solving skills will enhance their ability to solve future conflicts with a feeling of self-efficacy [54]. In addition, peer support and restorative practices will enable both parties to communicate the impact of the harm and amend their behavior, which can function as a preventive action for further conflicts [38,55].

Due to the lack of analysis of conflict management styles to reduce school violence and improve the school climate in secondary education [4,42], further studies are required. The present study examined the effectiveness of the FhaCE up! program, and Spanish research on school violence reductions and school climate improvements based on the peer conflict resolution model using a double-training to achieve a collaborative style.

1.2. FHaCE Up! Program

The FHaCE up! program was designed to address daily peer conflicts using a collaborative management style to improve the school climate and reduce school violence in secondary schools. “FhaCE” is an acronym that refers to the terms in Spanish “Formación en Habilidades Comunicativas y Emocionales”, which corresponds to “Training in Communicative and Emotional Skills”, a homonym to the English expression “face up”. This brings together the vision and intention of the program itself. This intervention program trains students in empathy, social skills, active listening, and a collaborative management style, aiming to solve interpersonal conflicts prior to the implementation of a peer-mediation program, which will facilitate awareness of the dialogical management of conflicts and will provoke the desire to demand peer mediation more often [56,57]. Additionally, peer support models such as peer mediation increase democratic participation and horizontal communication [28,43,58], reducing the imbalance in power caused by the dominance–submission axis [59], which is sustained in part by the structural violence in both institutions and the sociopolitical system [60]. Peer support programs also facilitate autonomy in decision-making and increase trust and feelings of belonging in both the peer group and the school, which are fundamental factors in maintaining a positive school climate [1].

The FHaCE up! program is based on an educational intervention that entails the collaboration and commitment of the school community. The design follows multiple approaches, starting with the principles of Bandura’s social learning theory [61], the conflict resolution model of Davidson and Woods [52], the peer mediation model of Torrego [62], and the emotional intelligence model of Salovey and Mayer [63]. The intervention was implemented as follows:

The program was organized into workshops during tutoring lessons, for 1 h a week, for four year groups in middle and high school that correspond to the Compulsory Secondary Education in Spain, called Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO). For the experimental group, the study was carried out from October to May of the 2018–2019 academic year and divided into two training actions: (1) training in socio-emotional skills and collaborative management style for all classes from 1º to 4º of ESO (N = 15 groups), and (2) training in peer mediation for all the volunteers in the mediation program, which was also going to be implemented in the center. Parents and school staff were offered information about the workshops and activities, as shared by online resources, and direct communication was maintained with the principal researcher. The first training action was carried out during tutoring hours so that students received training at the same time while teachers were present and involved, and consisted of four cooperative and participatory activities carried out in eight tutoring sessions of 50 min each (two sessions per activity). Each activity corresponded with empathy, assertiveness, active listening, and collaborative management style and was developed through role-playing, in which a conflict situation was presented relating to quotidian peer-to-peer conflicts. For the second training action, volunteer students were involved in learning the techniques and methodology of peer mediation, which consisted of four activities, carried out in six sessions of 1 h each during extracurricular time (from 2pm to 3pm). Each activity corresponded with mediation stages, procedures, and techniques. After the training, a day of gratitude was held for the entire educational community, during which accreditation diplomas declaring the participants to be mediators were delivered. Mediation and conflict resolutions were supervised until June 2019, the end of the academic year.

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program in reducing school violence and improving school climate in secondary schools. The first hypothesis of the present research considers the higher scores achieved in a healthy school climate, suggesting that school violence will be reduced after the intervention in the experimental group. As the second hypothesis of the study, we expect higher scores in socio-emotional skills and collaborative style to be achieved after the intervention in the experimental group. Likewise, following previous related programs [1,4,34,39,48], the FHaCE up! program is based on the three most promising criteria in educational interventions to reduce school violence and create a safe environment: considering the whole-school community, peer conflict-resolution skills, and lessons in socio-emotional skills.

Thus, significant differences are expected between the baseline (T1) and the follow-up (T2) for the experimental group in favor of the general aim of the program.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants were 561 adolescents between 11 and 17 years old (M = 13.72 years, SD = 1.18) from 2 public secondary schools in the province of Valencia, Spain, selected using non-probability convenience sampling. After that, both schools were randomly allocated to either the experimental group (EG) or the control group (CG). The initial sample consisted of 612 adolescents, of which 51 from both groups were eliminated due to 80% data loss within the two measurement times. Principal sociodemographic percentages for each group are shown in

Table 3. Sociodemographic percentages.

	EG (N = 264)	CG (N = 297)
Sex	55.3% women	52.9% men
Academic grade 1	71.6% First Stage	77.8% First Stage
Country of birth	95.1% Spain; 3.4% Africa; 1.3% Latin America; 0.2% Asia	93.6% Spain; 2.6% Africa; 1.7% Europe; 1.2% Latin America; 0.9% Asia
Repeated a year	37.5%	29.3%
Use social media	89.8%	99%
Parents country of birth	85.6% Spain; 6.6% Latin America; 3.9% Europe; 3.1% Africa; 0.8% Asia	79.1% Spain; 8.4% Latin America; 5.6% Europe; 4.2% Africa; 2.7% Asia
Parents educational level	2.7% undergraduate; 39.8% Elementary graduate; 33.3% High school graduate; 24.2% College graduate	2.7% undergraduate; 35.4% Elementary graduate; 38% High school graduate; 20.9% College graduate; 0.3% loss data
Presence of both parents at home	77.3%	70%

¹ Academic grade. There are two stages: the first stage (1º, 2º, and 3º ESO), and the second stage (4º ESO).

.

2.2. Instruments

In order to measure the effectiveness of the program, a battery of scales was developed, in which different standardized evaluation instruments were found, as well as an ad hoc questionnaire to collect sociodemographic characteristics.

2.2.1. School Violence

School violence was evaluated with the «CUVE3-ESO School Violence Questionnaire-3» [64], a 44-item self-report instrument that contains eight subscales for measuring the frequency of different forms of violence in a ranked 5-point Likert scale, from 1, “Never” to 5, “Always”, where 5 was the maximum punctuation. The subscales are: (F1) verbal violence by students towards students (4 items); (F2) verbal violence by students towards teachers (3 items); (F3) direct physical violence and threats between students (5 items); (F4) indirect physical violence by students (5 items); (F5) social exclusion (4 items); (F6) violence through information and communication technologies (10 items); (F7) disruption in the classroom (3 items); and (F8) violence by teachers towards students (10 items). The internal consistency of the original scale is high (α = 0.93), and the variance explained by the 8 factors is 55.40%. The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 2803.86, df = 874) lower to 5 (χ²/df = 3.2); RMSEA = 0.054 (confidence interval = 0.051–0.057); CFI =0.86; IFI = 0.86. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was good for F1 (α = 0.81), F2 (α = 0.85), F3 (α = 0.81), F4 (α = 0.80), F5 (α =0.81), F7 (α = 0.85), and F8 (α = 0.88); and excellent for F6 (α = 0.91). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was excellent (α = 0.95).

2.2.2. School Climate

School climate was measured using «School assets for positive adolescent development from the perspective of the student body» [65], a 30-item scale and self-report measure which evaluates the students’ perception in a ranked of 7-points Likert scale from 1, “Totally false” to 5, “Totally true”, where 7 was the maximum punctuation. It was composed of 4 dimensions: (F1) climate (6 items); (F2) bonds (7 items); (F3) clarity of norms and values (7 items); and (F4) empowerment and positive opportunities (10 items). The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for the chi-squared model (χ² = 1270.66, df = 341) lower to 5 (χ²/df = 3.7); RMSEA = 0.063 (confidence interval = 0.059–0.067); CFI =0.90; IFI =0.90. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) was excellent for F2 (α = 0.92); F3 (α = 0.91); F4 (α = 0.84); and poor for F1 (α = 0.52). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was excellent (α = 0.91).

2.2.3. Conflict Management Style

Conflict management styles were employed using the «Conflictalk» [66], an 18-item self-report that considers three different management styles in conflict situations, ranked on a 5-point Likert scale from 1, “I never say things like that” to 5, “I mostly say things like that”, where 5 was the maximum punctuation. The styles are: (F1) collaborative or issue-oriented (6 items); (F2) adversarial or self-oriented (6 items); and (F3) avoidant or other-oriented (6 items). The confirmatory factor analysis showed fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 715.98, df = 132) superior to 5 (χ²/df = 5.2); RMSEA = 0.077 (confidence interval = 0.071–0.084); CFI = 0.80; IFI = 0.80. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was good for F1 (α = 0.82); acceptable for F2 (α = 0.77); and questionable for F3 (α = 0.64). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was acceptable (α = 0.79).

2.2.4. Empathy

Empathy was evaluated using an adaptation of the «BES» scale [67], a 9-item self-report ranked on a 5-point Likert scale from 1, “Totally disagree” to 5, “Totally agree”, where 5 was the maximum punctuation. The scale was grouped into 2 factors: (F1) cognitive empathy (5 items); and (F2) affective empathy (4 items). The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for the chi-squared model (χ² = 53.88, df = 26) lower to 5 (χ²/df =2.1); RMSEA = 0.035 (confidence interval = 0.015–0.052); CFI = 0.97; IFI = 0.97. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was questionable for F1 (α = 0.61), and acceptable for F2 (α = 0.72). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was acceptable (α = 0.70).

2.2.5. Social Skills

Social skills were measured with the «CHASO» scale [68], a 40-item self-report which is grouped into 10 factors or skills: (F1) Interacting with strangers (4 items); (F2) Expressing positive feelings(4 items); (F3) Facing criticism (4 items); (F4) Interacting with people I am attracted to (4 items); (F5) Staying calm in the face of criticism (4 items); (F6) Public speaking/Interacting with superiors (4 items); (F7) Facing ridiculous situations (4 items); (F8) Defending one’s rights (4 items); (F9) Apologize (4 items); and (F10) Reject requests (4 items). The answers were measured on a rank of 5-point Likert scale from 1, “I am not related to that” to 5, “I am very much related to hat”, where 5 was the maximum punctuation. The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 1431.71, df = 695) lower to 5 (χ²/df = 2.1); RMSEA = 0.037 (confidence interval = 0.033–0.040); CFI = 0.90; IFI = 0.90. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for each factor was poor for F7 (α = 0.58); questionable for F1 (α = 0.68), F3 (α = 0.68), F5 (α = 0.62), F6 (α = 0.64), F8 (α = 0.64) and F10 (α = 0.66); acceptable for F2 (α = 0.74), and F9 (α = 0.77); and good for F4 (α = 0.88). The internal consistency of the whole instrument was good (α = 0.85).

2.2.6. Active Listening

Active listening was employed using the «Listening Styles Inventory» scale [69], adapted by [70], an 8-item self-report in which the listening ability of adolescents was evaluated in a one-dimensional way. The answers were measured using a 5-point Likert scale from 1, “Rarely” to 5, “Almost always”, where 5 was the maximum punctuation. The confirmatory factor analysis showed optimal fit indices for chi-squared model (χ² = 24.57, df = 20) lower to 5 (χ²/df = 1.2); RMSEA = 0.030 (confidence interval = 0.000–0.061); CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99. The internal consistency of the one-dimensionality of this instrument was good (α = 0.83), and the explained variance was 47.5%.

Sociodemographic results were collected with an ad hoc questionnaire with optional responses added to the battery of instruments, in which sex, age, academic grade, country of birth, parents´ country of birth, parents´ educational level, academic achievement, use of social media and whether both parents were at home were collected, among other information.

2.3. Procedure

The study is presented in the flow chart shown in Figure 1.

All the procedures were previously approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Valencia (Reference number: H1529396558647).

2.4. Design and Data Analysis

The research follows a quasi-experimental design in which the schools were selected using non-probability convenience sampling. However, both schools were randomly allocated, one to the experimental group and the other to the control group, considering their similar sociodemographic characteristics as inclusion criteria: public school that only teaches middle and high school grades, with more than 25 students per class, located in the surrounding areas of Valencia.

For the analyses, participants´ scores from the EG and CG in each of the evaluated variables were used. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for the validity of each instrument was measured with EQS 6.4 computer program, using fit indices: χ2/df, RMSEA (IC), CFI, and IFI. Chi-squared (χ2) was used to clarify the homogeneity of the composition of the sample. The effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program was measured for each pair of variables using an ANCOVA test of repeated measures of ‘moment’ (T1 pre-intervention vs. T2 post-intervention) with ‘group’ (participants from the EG vs. participants from the CG) to analyze the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing school violence, as well as adversarial and avoidant management styles, and improving school climate, collaborative style, empathy, social skills, and active listening. For significant results, eta-squared (η²) was used to measure the size of the effect, introducing T1 as a covariate. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics for Windows (IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 20, Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

3. Results

3.1. Sample Composition

The following table shows the homogeneity of the sample regarding the sex and age of both groups (

Table 4. Composition of the sample with chi-square (χ²) and percentages.

Sociodemographic Variables		EG 1		CG 2		χ2	p
		N	%	N	%
Sex	Male	118	44.7	157	52.9	3.729	0.053
	Female	146	55.3	140	47.1
Age	First Stage	189	71.6	231	77.8	2.843	0.092
	Second Stage	75	28.4	66	22.2

¹ EG = Experimental Group; ² CG = Control Group.

).

3.2. Effectiveness of the Intervention

To measure the effectiveness of the program, ANCOVA was used; the strongest and least biased measure was considered to be “controls for preexisting differences in the outcome when assessing the effect of the treatment” [71] (p. 8). T1 level was considered as a covariate to control any possible bias [72] (

Table 5. ANCOVA for each variable to measure the effect size of the FHaCE up! program.

Variables	Condition EG = 264 EC = 297	Mean (SD)	F	gl	p 1	η2	β-1
School Violence	EG	2.20 (0.42)	137.41	1	<0.001	0.20	1
	CG	2.68 (0.53)
School Climate	EG	4.81 (0.59)	43.35	1	<0.001	0.07	1
	CG	4.03 (0.65)
Collaborative style	EG	3.28 (0.77)	16.07	1	<0.001	0.06	1
	CG	2.97 (0.74)
Adversarial Style	EG	1.65 (0.49)	36.01	1	<0.001	0.06	1
	CG	2.18 (0.70)
Avoidance Style	EG	2.28 (0.68)	23.70	1	<0.001	0.04	1
	CG	2.42 (0.65)
Empathy	EG	3.92 (0.42)	25.07	1	<0.001	0.05	1
	CG	3.60 (0.49)
Social skills	EG	3.46 (0.44)	25.55	1	<0.001	0.04	1
	CG	3.19 (0.39)
Active listening	EG	3.84 (0.62)	56.11	1	<0.001	0.09	1
	CG	3.56 (0.56)

¹p = 0.05.

).

The ANCOVA results showed a strong effect on reducing school violence and a moderate effect on improving school climate, collaborative style, and active listening. Moderate effects were also found for reducing adversarial style. However, small effect sizes were observed on improvements in empathy and social skills and reductions avoidance style. Nevertheless, the major hypothesis of the study can be confirmed.

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program for reducing school violence and improving school climate in a sample of secondary school students. As recent meta-analyses show [1,46], the results of the present study have a strong effect size in reducing school violence, which confirms that tackling aggressive behaviors with social-emotional learning using a collaborative conflict management style can be a good preventive factor regarding school violence.

The FHaCE up! program is based on double training for students in conflict resolution strategies. In order to achieve a collaborative conflict management style, the first training develops socio-emotional and communicative skills, and the second training is based on a peer-mediation program, as “in any mediation setting, identifying disputants’ conflict styles plays an important role in the process of empowering the parties to reach a successful resolution to their dispute” [73] (p. 20). Additionally, tutor–teachers were involved during the first training activities, as they took place during tutorial lessons. This could explain the moderate effect on the school climate. Teachers support students´ responses during the activities and collaborate to improve the understanding of each skill, which may empower participatory opportunities, a major factor in the school climate [74]. Teachers’ social support is also associated with emotional engagement, and strong emotional bonds can emerge between teachers and students, which is another major factor in the school climate [65,75].

Regarding peer support programs, socio-emotional and communication skills such as empathy, assertiveness, and active listening have been proven to be great techniques for tackling conflict resolution [9]. While empathy and social skills have shown small effect sizes, active listening presented a moderate-to-strong effect, which could be because this skill was demonstrated twice, during the first and second training, so students could have achieved a greater comprehension of how to use it, and what to use it for [76]. In addition, these types of programs foster a more collaborative school system, which is related to reductions in adversarial and avoidant styles and strengthens affective bonds among peers [77]. In addition, a “greater perception of affiliation with peers is linked to greater empathy, which encourages the expression of feelings in the family system” [77] (p. 6).

Furthermore, the study showed higher scores for the collaborative management style, and lower scores for the adversarial style, after the intervention, which may confirm that the program reinforces the collaborative style and tackles the aggressive behaviors commonly associated with the adversarial style [8,45,53]. Additionally, “as the conflict in the classroom is an inevitable part of reality, appropriate strategies are needed to manage it in a way that realizes the potential benefits of conflict and minimizes or eliminates its harmful effects” [45] (p. 3); the collaborative style is considered the most adequate conflict management style to increase autonomy, assertiveness, and consideration of others [9,54].

The present study maintains that training in conflict resolution skills for the entire school before the implementation of a peer mediation program will reinforce a collaborative conflict management style and improve commitment to resolving conflicts peacefully. Not only will mediators benefit from the skills and knowledge they obtain, which represents the most common criticism regarding peer mediation programs [78], but this will also lead to reduced school violence, as previous studies have found that peer mediation activities prevent increases in bullying behaviors [51].

Differing from another type of program, in which teacher interventions reduce adolescents’ openness and their ability to solve their own conflicts [79], FHaCE up! program gives the responsibility to the students and increases the teachers´ trust in students’ ability to manage daily conflicts with peers. Furthermore, increasing opportunities for adolescents to solve their own conflicts can empower them and make them feel self-confident, which can also increase prosocial behaviors in the future [80].

Regarding conflict management styles for the prevention of school violence, barely any research has empirically examined the relationship between different conflict management styles and bullying victimization “or whether the negative effect of victimization can be reduced or amplified through the use of conflict management styles” [45] (p. 1). Therefore, the present research can shed some light on this matter.

However, it is necessary to acknowledge the limitations of this study. A cross-sectional, correlational study cannot offer strong evidence of a causal relationship or isolate the direction of effects between the study variables. The inherent bias of social desirability inducted by self-report measures was not controlled by comparison with any other types of reports, such as interviews with families and teachers regarding adolescent attitudes and behaviors or a systematic observation report during the intervention, which could confirm the effectiveness of the program. In addition, it will be necessary to evaluate teachers´ perceptions and skills, as was performed with students. This could represent a major inconvenience regarding the previously mentioned benefits of educational interventions, including both teachers and students [18,46,81].

As many school-based interventions to prevent bullying and reduce school violence did not present long-term effects [46], a longitudinal follow-up is recommended after the end of the intervention. Moreover, both sample groups’ training was not at the same time of the year due to the need to collect informed consent from families in the control group, which had to be presented in paper format. A digital format would be recommendable, as this would reduce the rush in the research.

Finally, as the main researchers were involved in both collecting the data and the training, a double-blind study will be necessary to control for the possible Halo effect in the post-test. However, it has been demonstrated that “the type of personnel delivery (via school staff or experts) did not affect the effectiveness of traditional bullying interventions” [46] (p. 146).

Despite these limitations, all the study variables were evaluated, so this could shed some light on the matter of addressing school violence and school climate using a collaborative conflict management style and social-emotional skills, demonstrating the effectiveness of the FHaCE up! program for the reduction of school violence and the improvement in school climate.

5. Conclusions

The school-based conflict resolution program analyzed in this study has an institutional character that involves the educational community and allows for a democratic and dialogical culture of peaceful coexistence in schools, fostering greater socio-emotional education and more autonomy in peer conflict resolution, which can generate strong engagement and maintain a positive school climate [8,77,78]. Moreover, training in socio-emotional skills to achieve a collaborative conflict management style can enhance the benefits of a peer mediation program [20,43]. Regarding school violence reduction, a collaborative management style seems to be the most desirable way to resolve conflict in day-to-day school life [9,45]. As an unsolved conflict can escalate from peer aggression to bullying [34], one of the main public health problems that affect the entire educational community in secondary schools [1,2,12] and can make sustainable living unattainable [3], it is important to design and implement effective long-term interventions. As far as we know, there are few studies that use a conflict management style to address school violence in secondary schools [45]. In this regard, the present study shows that the FHaCE up! program can be effective in reducing school violence and improving the school climate. In addition, this type of intervention can address teachers´ and families´ engagement, as both can improve their conflict management style while increasing their participation in the school community, which is considered a major factor in the creation of a democratic and safer school environment [81,82], as students perceive more support from their school community [75,78].