Bullying is a persistent problem in schools, and teachers play a central role when it comes to addressing it. Research shows that teacher-led antibullying discussions can reduce bullying, but they do not work equally well for all students. A recent study from the University of Turku in Finland by Garandeau, Johander, Turunen, & Salmivalli (2026) helps explain why some children are more resistant to these efforts and what might make interventions more effective.
Understanding callous-unemotional traits
One important concept in this research is callous-unemotional (CU) traits. These traits include low empathy, little guilt or remorse, and a limited emotional response to others’ distress. CU traits tend to be relatively stable over time and have been consistently linked to higher levels of aggression and bullying.
Previous studies have also shown that students with high CU traits are often less sensitive to punishment and traditional discipline strategies. However, until now, it has been unclear why they respond less positively to antibullying conversations with teachers. Previous research has already shown that students with high CU traits are less likely to change their behavior after being disciplined (Johander et al., 2022; Allen et al., 2018). Our study asked a deeper question: Why does this happen?
How do students with high CU traits perceive the teachers’ words?
Our study focused on the idea that the problem may lie not only in what teachers say, but in how students understand and interpret those messages. Our hypothesis was that students high in CU traits may perceive teachers’ words in a more negative or distorted way, which in turn reduces their willingness to change their behavior.
To test this idea, we conducted a study with 843 students in Grades 4 and 7 in Finland. The students were asked to imagine that they had bullied a peer and had been invited to a meeting with a teacher. They then watched a short video showing a teacher addressing the situation. In some videos, the teacher clearly condemned the bullying behavior. In others, the teacher focused on encouraging empathy for the bullied student. In a third condition, both approaches were combined. After watching the video, students reported how they perceived the teacher’s message and how likely they would be to stop bullying.
Why this research matters?
Students with higher levels of CU traits reported a lower intention to stop bullying. More importantly, they also perceived the teacher’s message differently than other students. They were more likely to feel that the teacher was blaming them as a person, rather than criticizing specific behavior. At the same time, they were less likely to notice that the teacher was trying to raise empathy for the bullied student or clearly condemn the bullying behavior itself.
These perceptions turned out to be crucial. When students felt personally blamed, they were less inclined to want to change their behavior. When they perceived the teacher as trying to help them understand the bullied student’s feelings, they were more likely to express an intention to stop bullying. These biased perceptions partly explained why students high in CU traits were more resistant to the intervention. Among students who had actually bullied others in real life, misunderstanding the empathy-raising message was the most important factor linked to continued resistance.
What can teachers learn from this study?
Children and adolescents with high CU traits often have difficulties recognizing emotions such as sadness or fear and are more prone to interpreting ambiguous social cues as hostile. As a result, a teacher’s attempt to correct behavior may be experienced as a personal attack, even when the teacher intends to focus on actions rather than character. This defensive interpretation can block the moral and emotional message the teacher is trying to convey. Understanding these psychological processes can help schools design more effective, compassionate, and targeted interventions.
Instead of asking, “Why won’t this student change their behavior?”, the better question may be, “How is this student hearing the message?”
Conclusions
Students higher in CU traits are not necessarily unwilling to change. Instead, they may be processing the message in a way that undermines its impact. This insight has important implications for practice. It suggests that teacher interventions may be more effective if teachers explicitly clarify that they are criticizing the behavior, not the student as a person. Emphasizing that behavior can be changed and that the goal is improvement rather than punishment may help reduce feelings of personal blame. In addition, helping students reflect on and question their own negative interpretations could further support behavior change.
Overall, this study highlights that antibullying interventions are not one-size-fits-all. Individual personality traits influence how students hear and interpret adult messages. By paying closer attention to students’ perceptions and especially by avoiding unintended personal blame, teachers may increase the effectiveness of their efforts to reduce bullying. Instead of asking why some students refuse to change, the findings encourage educators to consider how those students understand what is being said to them.
Author: Claire Garandeau, Professor, INVEST Research Flagship Centre at the University of Turku
Blog is based on a study:
Garandeau, C. F., Johander, E., Turunen, T., & Salmivalli, C. (2026). Why Students Higher in Callous-Unemotional Traits Are More Resistant to Targeted Anti-Bullying Interventions by Teachers: The Role of Biased Perceptions. Research on child and adolescent psychopathology, 54(2), 51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-026-01450-1
References:
Allen, J. L., Bird, E., & Chhoa, C. Y. (2018). Bad boys and mean girls: Callous-Unemotional traits, management of disruptive behavior in school, the teacher-student relationship and academic motivation. Frontiers in Education, 3, 108. 10.3389/feduc.2018.00108 [Google Scholar]
Johander, E., Trach, J., Turunen, T., Garandeau, C. F., & Salmivalli, C. (2022). Intention to stop bullying following a condemning, empathy-raising, or combined message from a teacher – Do students’ empathy and callous-unemotional traits matter? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51, 1568–1580. 10.1007/s10964-022-01613-5 [DOI