National Academies Press: OpenBook

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice (2016)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

Bullying, long tolerated by many as a rite of passage into adulthood, is now recognized as a major and preventable public health problem, one that can have long-lasting consequences ( McDougall and Vaillancourt, 2015 ; Wolke and Lereya, 2015 ). Those consequences—for those who are bullied, for the perpetrators of bullying, and for witnesses who are present during a bullying event—include poor school performance, anxiety, depression, and future delinquent and aggressive behavior. Federal, state, and local governments have responded by adopting laws and implementing programs to prevent bullying and deal with its consequences. However, many of these responses have been undertaken with little attention to what is known about bullying and its effects. Even the definition of bullying varies among both researchers and lawmakers, though it generally includes physical and verbal behavior, behavior leading to social isolation, and behavior that uses digital communications technology (cyberbullying). This report adopts the term “bullying behavior,” which is frequently used in the research field, to cover all of these behaviors.

Bullying behavior is evident as early as preschool, although it peaks during the middle school years ( Currie et al., 2012 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2010 ). It can occur in diverse social settings, including classrooms, school gyms and cafeterias, on school buses, and online. Bullying behavior affects not only the children and youth who are bullied, who bully, and who are both bullied and bully others but also bystanders to bullying incidents. Given the myriad situations in which bullying can occur and the many people who may be involved, identifying effective prevention programs and policies is challenging, and it is unlikely that any one approach will be ap-

propriate in all situations. Commonly used bullying prevention approaches include policies regarding acceptable behavior in schools and behavioral interventions to promote positive cultural norms.

STUDY CHARGE

Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, a group of federal agencies and private foundations asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to undertake a study of what is known and what needs to be known to further the field of preventing bullying behavior. The Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization:

Lessons for Bullying Prevention was created to carry out this task under the Academies’ Board on Children, Youth, and Families and the Committee on Law and Justice. The study received financial support from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Highmark Foundation, the National Institute of Justice, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Semi J. and Ruth W. Begun Foundation, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The full statement of task for the committee is presented in Box 1-1 .

Although the committee acknowledges the importance of this topic as it pertains to all children in the United States and in U.S. territories, this report focuses on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Also, while the committee acknowledges that bullying behavior occurs in the school

environment for youth in foster care, in juvenile justice facilities, and in other residential treatment facilities, this report does not address bullying behavior in those environments because it is beyond the study charge.

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

This section of the report highlights relevant work in the field and, later in the chapter under “The Committee’s Approach,” presents the conceptual framework and corresponding definitions of terms that the committee has adopted.

Historical Context

Bullying behavior was first characterized in the scientific literature as part of the childhood experience more than 100 years ago in “Teasing and Bullying,” published in the Pedagogical Seminary ( Burk, 1897 ). The author described bullying behavior, attempted to delineate causes and cures for the tormenting of others, and called for additional research ( Koo, 2007 ). Nearly a century later, Dan Olweus, a Swedish research professor of psychology in Norway, conducted an intensive study on bullying ( Olweus, 1978 ). The efforts of Olweus brought awareness to the issue and motivated other professionals to conduct their own research, thereby expanding and contributing to knowledge of bullying behavior. Since Olweus’s early work, research on bullying has steadily increased (see Farrington and Ttofi, 2009 ; Hymel and Swearer, 2015 ).

Over the past few decades, venues where bullying behavior occurs have expanded with the advent of the Internet, chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication. These modes of communication have provided a new communal avenue for bullying. While the media reports linking bullying to suicide suggest a causal relationship, the available research suggests that there are often multiple factors that contribute to a youth’s suicide-related ideology and behavior. Several studies, however, have demonstrated an association between bullying involvement and suicide-related ideology and behavior (see, e.g., Holt et al., 2015 ; Kim and Leventhal, 2008 ; Sourander, 2010 ; van Geel et al., 2014 ).

In 2013, the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requested that the Institute of Medicine 1 and the National Research Council convene an ad hoc planning committee to plan and conduct a 2-day public workshop to highlight relevant information and knowledge that could inform a multidisciplinary

___________________

1 Prior to 2015, the National Academy of Medicine was known as the Institute of Medicine.

road map on next steps for the field of bullying prevention. Content areas that were explored during the April 2014 workshop included the identification of conceptual models and interventions that have proven effective in decreasing bullying and the antecedents to bullying while increasing protective factors that mitigate the negative health impact of bullying. The discussions highlighted the need for a better understanding of the effectiveness of program interventions in realistic settings; the importance of understanding what works for whom and under what circumstances, as well as the influence of different mediators (i.e., what accounts for associations between variables) and moderators (i.e., what affects the direction or strength of associations between variables) in bullying prevention efforts; and the need for coordination among agencies to prevent and respond to bullying. The workshop summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ) informs this committee’s work.

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

Currently, there is no comprehensive federal statute that explicitly prohibits bullying among children and adolescents, including cyberbullying. However, in the wake of the growing concerns surrounding the implications of bullying, several federal initiatives do address bullying among children and adolescents, and although some of them do not primarily focus on bullying, they permit some funds to be used for bullying prevention purposes.

The earliest federal initiative was in 1999, when three agencies collaborated to establish the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative in response to a series of deadly school shootings in the late 1990s. The program is administered by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice to prevent youth violence and promote the healthy development of youth. It is jointly funded by the Department of Education and by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The program has provided grantees with both the opportunity to benefit from collaboration and the tools to sustain it through deliberate planning, more cost-effective service delivery, and a broader funding base ( Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2015 ).

The next major effort was in 2010, when the Department of Education awarded $38.8 million in grants under the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) Program to 11 states to support statewide measurement of conditions for learning and targeted programmatic interventions to improve conditions for learning, in order to help schools improve safety and reduce substance use. The S3 Program was administered by the Safe and Supportive Schools Group, which also administered the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act State and Local Grants Program, authorized by the

1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 2 It was one of several programs related to developing and maintaining safe, disciplined, and drug-free schools. In addition to the S3 grants program, the group administered a number of interagency agreements with a focus on (but not limited to) bullying, school recovery research, data collection, and drug and violence prevention activities ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ).

A collaborative effort among the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Interior, and Justice; the Federal Trade Commission; and the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders created the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention (FPBP) Steering Committee. Led by the U.S. Department of Education, the FPBP works to coordinate policy, research, and communications on bullying topics. The FPBP Website provides extensive resources on bullying behavior, including information on what bullying is, its risk factors, its warning signs, and its effects. 3 The FPBP Steering Committee also plans to provide details on how to get help for those who have been bullied. It also was involved in creating the “Be More than a Bystander” Public Service Announcement campaign with the Ad Council to engage students in bullying prevention. To improve school climate and reduce rates of bullying nationwide, FPBP has sponsored four bullying prevention summits attended by education practitioners, policy makers, researchers, and federal officials.

In 2014, the National Institute of Justice—the scientific research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice—launched the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative with a congressional appropriation of $75 million. The funds are to be used for rigorous research to produce practical knowledge that can improve the safety of schools and students, including bullying prevention. The initiative is carried out through partnerships among researchers, educators, and other stakeholders, including law enforcement, behavioral and mental health professionals, courts, and other justice system professionals ( National Institute of Justice, 2015 ).

In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act was signed by President Obama, reauthorizing the 50-year-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students. Although bullying is neither defined nor prohibited in this act, it is explicitly mentioned in regard to applicability of safe school funding, which it had not been in previous iterations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

2 The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act was included as Title IV, Part A, of the 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. See http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect08-i.html [October 2015].

3 For details, see http://www.stopbullying.gov/ [October 2015].

healthy development of youth, improving the safety of schools and students, and reducing rates of bullying behavior. There are several other federal initiatives that address student bullying directly or allow funds to be used for bullying prevention activities.

Definitional Context

The terms “bullying,” “harassment,” and “peer victimization” have been used in the scientific literature to refer to behavior that is aggressive, is carried out repeatedly and over time, and occurs in an interpersonal relationship where a power imbalance exists ( Eisenberg and Aalsma, 2005 ). Although some of these terms have been used interchangeably in the literature, peer victimization is targeted aggressive behavior of one child against another that causes physical, emotional, social, or psychological harm. While conflict and bullying among siblings are important in their own right ( Tanrikulu and Campbell, 2015 ), this area falls outside of the scope of the committee’s charge. Sibling conflict and aggression falls under the broader concept of interpersonal aggression, which includes dating violence, sexual assault, and sibling violence, in addition to bullying as defined for this report. Olweus (1993) noted that bullying, unlike other forms of peer victimization where the children involved are equally matched, involves a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the target, where the target has difficulty defending him or herself and feels helpless against the aggressor. This power imbalance is typically considered a defining feature of bullying, which distinguishes this particular form of aggression from other forms, and is typically repeated in multiple bullying incidents involving the same individuals over time ( Olweus, 1993 ).

Bullying and violence are subcategories of aggressive behavior that overlap ( Olweus, 1996 ). There are situations in which violence is used in the context of bullying. However, not all forms of bullying (e.g., rumor spreading) involve violent behavior. The committee also acknowledges that perspective about intentions can matter and that in many situations, there may be at least two plausible perceptions involved in the bullying behavior.

A number of factors may influence one’s perception of the term “bullying” ( Smith and Monks, 2008 ). Children and adolescents’ understanding of the term “bullying” may be subject to cultural interpretations or translations of the term ( Hopkins et al., 2013 ). Studies have also shown that influences on children’s understanding of bullying include the child’s experiences as he or she matures and whether the child witnesses the bullying behavior of others ( Hellström et al., 2015 ; Monks and Smith, 2006 ; Smith and Monks, 2008 ).

In 2010, the FPBP Steering Committee convened its first summit, which brought together more than 150 nonprofit and corporate leaders,

researchers, practitioners, parents, and youths to identify challenges in bullying prevention. Discussions at the summit revealed inconsistencies in the definition of bullying behavior and the need to create a uniform definition of bullying. Subsequently, a review of the 2011 CDC publication of assessment tools used to measure bullying among youth ( Hamburger et al., 2011 ) revealed inconsistent definitions of bullying and diverse measurement strategies. Those inconsistencies and diverse measurements make it difficult to compare the prevalence of bullying across studies ( Vivolo et al., 2011 ) and complicate the task of distinguishing bullying from other types of aggression between youths. A uniform definition can support the consistent tracking of bullying behavior over time, facilitate the comparison of bullying prevalence rates and associated risk and protective factors across different data collection systems, and enable the collection of comparable information on the performance of bullying intervention and prevention programs across contexts ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). The CDC and U.S. Department of Education collaborated on the creation of the following uniform definition of bullying (quoted in Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ):

Bullying is any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated. Bullying may inflict harm or distress on the targeted youth including physical, psychological, social, or educational harm.

This report noted that the definition includes school-age individuals ages 5-18 and explicitly excludes sibling violence and violence that occurs in the context of a dating or intimate relationship ( Gladden et al., 2014 ). This definition also highlighted that there are direct and indirect modes of bullying, as well as different types of bullying. Direct bullying involves “aggressive behavior(s) that occur in the presence of the targeted youth”; indirect bullying includes “aggressive behavior(s) that are not directly communicated to the targeted youth” ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). The direct forms of violence (e.g., sibling violence, teen dating violence, intimate partner violence) can include aggression that is physical, sexual, or psychological, but the context and uniquely dynamic nature of the relationship between the target and the perpetrator in which these acts occur is different from that of peer bullying. Examples of direct bullying include pushing, hitting, verbal taunting, or direct written communication. A common form of indirect bullying is spreading rumors. Four different types of bullying are commonly identified—physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property. Some observational studies have shown that the different forms of bullying that youths commonly experience may overlap ( Bradshaw et al., 2015 ;

Godleski et al., 2015 ). The four types of bullying are defined as follows ( Gladden et al., 2014 ):

  • Physical bullying involves the use of physical force (e.g., shoving, hitting, spitting, pushing, and tripping).
  • Verbal bullying involves oral or written communication that causes harm (e.g., taunting, name calling, offensive notes or hand gestures, verbal threats).
  • Relational bullying is behavior “designed to harm the reputation and relationships of the targeted youth (e.g., social isolation, rumor spreading, posting derogatory comments or pictures online).”
  • Damage to property is “theft, alteration, or damaging of the target youth’s property by the perpetrator to cause harm.”

In recent years, a new form of aggression or bullying has emerged, labeled “cyberbullying,” in which the aggression occurs through modern technological devices, specifically mobile phones or the Internet ( Slonje and Smith, 2008 ). Cyberbullying may take the form of mean or nasty messages or comments, rumor spreading through posts or creation of groups, and exclusion by groups of peers online.

While the CDC definition identifies bullying that occurs using technology as electronic bullying and views that as a context or location where bullying occurs, one of the major challenges in the field is how to conceptualize and define cyberbullying ( Tokunaga, 2010 ). The extent to which the CDC definition can be applied to cyberbullying is unclear, particularly with respect to several key concepts within the CDC definition. First, whether determination of an interaction as “wanted” or “unwanted” or whether communication was intended to be harmful can be challenging to assess in the absence of important in-person socioemotional cues (e.g., vocal tone, facial expressions). Second, assessing “repetition” is challenging in that a single harmful act on the Internet has the potential to be shared or viewed multiple times ( Sticca and Perren, 2013 ). Third, cyberbullying can involve a less powerful peer using technological tools to bully a peer who is perceived to have more power. In this manner, technology may provide the tools that create a power imbalance, in contrast to traditional bullying, which typically involves an existing power imbalance.

A study that used focus groups with college students to discuss whether the CDC definition applied to cyberbullying found that students were wary of applying the definition due to their perception that cyberbullying often involves less emphasis on aggression, intention, and repetition than other forms of bullying ( Kota et al., 2014 ). Many researchers have responded to this lack of conceptual and definitional clarity by creating their own measures to assess cyberbullying. It is noteworthy that very few of these

definitions and measures include the components of traditional bullying—i.e., repetition, power imbalance, and intent ( Berne et al., 2013 ). A more recent study argues that the term “cyberbullying” should be reserved for incidents that involve key aspects of bullying such as repetition and differential power ( Ybarra et al., 2014 ).

Although the formulation of a uniform definition of bullying appears to be a step in the right direction for the field of bullying prevention, there are some limitations of the CDC definition. For example, some researchers find the focus on school-age youth as well as the repeated nature of bullying to be rather limiting; similarly the exclusion of bullying in the context of sibling relationships or dating relationships may preclude full appreciation of the range of aggressive behaviors that may co-occur with or constitute bullying behavior. As noted above, other researchers have raised concerns about whether cyberbullying should be considered a particular form or mode under the broader heading of bullying as suggested in the CDC definition, or whether a separate defintion is needed. Furthermore, the measurement of bullying prevalence using such a definiton of bullying is rather complex and does not lend itself well to large-scale survey research. The CDC definition was intended to inform public health surveillance efforts, rather than to serve as a definition for policy. However, increased alignment between bullying definitions used by policy makers and researchers would greatly advance the field. Much of the extant research on bullying has not applied a consistent definition or one that aligns with the CDC definition. As a result of these and other challenges to the CDC definition, thus far there has been inconsistent adoption of this particular definition by researchers, practitioners, or policy makers; however, as the definition was created in 2014, less than 2 years is not a sufficient amount of time to assess whether it has been successfully adopted or will be in the future.

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

This report builds on the April 2014 workshop, summarized in Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c ). The committee’s work was accomplished over an 18-month period that began in October 2014, after the workshop was held and the formal summary of it had been released. The study committee members represented expertise in communication technology, criminology, developmental and clinical psychology, education, mental health, neurobiological development, pediatrics, public health, school administration, school district policy, and state law and policy. (See Appendix E for biographical sketches of the committee members and staff.) The committee met three times in person and conducted other meetings by teleconferences and electronic communication.

Information Gathering

The committee conducted an extensive review of the literature pertaining to peer victimization and bullying. In some instances, the committee drew upon the broader literature on aggression and violence. The review began with an English-language literature search of online databases, including ERIC, Google Scholar, Lexis Law Reviews Database, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and was expanded as literature and resources from other countries were identified by committee members and project staff as relevant. The committee drew upon the early childhood literature since there is substantial evidence indicating that bullying involvement happens as early as preschool (see Vlachou et al., 2011 ). The committee also drew on the literature on late adolescence and looked at related areas of research such as maltreatment for insights into this emerging field.

The committee used a variety of sources to supplement its review of the literature. The committee held two public information-gathering sessions, one with the study sponsors and the second with experts on the neurobiology of bullying; bullying as a group phenomenon and the role of bystanders; the role of media in bullying prevention; and the intersection of social science, the law, and bullying and peer victimization. See Appendix A for the agendas for these two sessions. To explore different facets of bullying and give perspectives from the field, a subgroup of the committee and study staff also conducted a site visit to a northeastern city, where they convened four stakeholder groups comprised, respectively, of local practitioners, school personnel, private foundation representatives, and young adults. The site visit provided the committee with an opportunity for place-based learning about bullying prevention programs and best practices. Each focus group was transcribed and summarized thematically in accordance with this report’s chapter considerations. Themes related to the chapters are displayed throughout the report in boxes titled “Perspectives from the Field”; these boxes reflect responses synthesized from all four focus groups. See Appendix B for the site visit’s agenda and for summaries of the focus groups.

The committee also benefited from earlier reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine through its Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education and the Institute of Medicine, most notably:

  • Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research ( Institute of Medicine, 1994 )
  • Community Programs to Promote Youth Development ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002 )
  • Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2003 )
  • Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders Among Young People: Progress and Possibilities ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 )
  • The Science of Adolescent Risk-Taking: Workshop Report ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2011 )
  • Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012 )
  • Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014c )
  • The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and Around the World: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014a )
  • Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2014b )
  • Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults ( Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2015 )

Although these past reports and workshop summaries address various forms of violence and victimization, this report is the first consensus study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on the state of the science on the biological and psychosocial consequences of bullying and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease bullying behavior and its consequences.

Terminology

Given the variable use of the terms “bullying” and “peer victimization” in both the research-based and practice-based literature, the committee chose to use the current CDC definition quoted above ( Gladden et al., 2014, p. 7 ). While the committee determined that this was the best definition to use, it acknowledges that this definition is not necessarily the most user-friendly definition for students and has the potential to cause problems for students reporting bullying. Not only does this definition provide detail on the common elements of bullying behavior but it also was developed with input from a panel of researchers and practitioners. The committee also followed the CDC in focusing primarily on individuals between the ages of 5 and 18. The committee recognizes that children’s development occurs on a continuum, and so while it relied primarily on the CDC defini-

tion, its work and this report acknowledge the importance of addressing bullying in both early childhood and emerging adulthood. For purposes of this report, the committee used the terms “early childhood” to refer to ages 1-4, “middle childhood” for ages 5 to 10, “early adolescence” for ages 11-14, “middle adolescence” for ages 15-17, and “late adolescence” for ages 18-21. This terminology and the associated age ranges are consistent with the Bright Futures and American Academy of Pediatrics definition of the stages of development. 4

A given instance of bullying behavior involves at least two unequal roles: one or more individuals who perpetrate the behavior (the perpetrator in this instance) and at least one individual who is bullied (the target in this instance). To avoid labeling and potentially further stigmatizing individuals with the terms “bully” and “victim,” which are sometimes viewed as traits of persons rather than role descriptions in a particular instance of behavior, the committee decided to use “individual who is bullied” to refer to the target of a bullying instance or pattern and “individual who bullies” to refer to the perpetrator of a bullying instance or pattern. Thus, “individual who is bullied and bullies others” can refer to one who is either perpetrating a bullying behavior or a target of bullying behavior, depending on the incident. This terminology is consistent with the approach used by the FPBP (see above). Also, bullying is a dynamic social interaction ( Espelage and Swearer, 2003 ) where individuals can play different roles in bullying interactions based on both individual and contextual factors.

The committee used “cyberbullying” to refer to bullying that takes place using technology or digital electronic means. “Digital electronic forms of contact” comprise a broad category that may include e-mail, blogs, social networking Websites, online games, chat rooms, forums, instant messaging, Skype, text messaging, and mobile phone pictures. The committee uses the term “traditional bullying” to refer to bullying behavior that is not cyberbullying (to aid in comparisons), recognizing that the term has been used at times in slightly different senses in the literature.

Where accurate reporting of study findings requires use of the above terms but with senses different from those specified here, the committee has noted the sense in which the source used the term. Similarly, accurate reporting has at times required use of terms such as “victimization” or “victim” that the committee has chosen to avoid in its own statements.

4 For details on these stages of adolescence, see https://brightfutures.aap.org/Bright%20Futures%20Documents/3-Promoting_Child_Development.pdf [October 2015].

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

This report is organized into seven chapters. After this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a broad overview of the scope of the problem.

Chapter 3 focuses on the conceptual frameworks for the study and the developmental trajectory of the child who is bullied, the child who bullies, and the child who is bullied and also bullies. It explores processes that can explain heterogeneity in bullying outcomes by focusing on contextual processes that moderate the effect of individual characteristics on bullying behavior.

Chapter 4 discusses the cyclical nature of bullying and the consequences of bullying behavior. It summarizes what is known about the psychosocial, physical health, neurobiological, academic-performance, and population-level consequences of bullying.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the landscape in bullying prevention programming. This chapter describes in detail the context for preventive interventions and the specific actions that various stakeholders can take to achieve a coordinated response to bullying behavior. The chapter uses the Institute of Medicine’s multi-tiered framework ( National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009 ) to present the different levels of approaches to preventing bullying behavior.

Chapter 6 reviews what is known about federal, state, and local laws and policies and their impact on bullying.

After a critical review of the relevant research and practice-based literatures, Chapter 7 discusses the committee conclusions and recommendations and provides a path forward for bullying prevention.

The report includes a number of appendixes. Appendix A includes meeting agendas of the committee’s public information-gathering meetings. Appendix B includes the agenda and summaries of the site visit. Appendix C includes summaries of bullying prevalence data from the national surveys discussed in Chapter 2 . Appendix D provides a list of selected federal resources on bullying for parents and teachers. Appendix E provides biographical sketches of the committee members and project staff.

Berne, S., Frisén, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Naruskov, K., Luik, P., Katzer, C., Erentaite, R., and Zukauskiene, R. (2013). Cyberbullying assessment instruments: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18 (2), 320-334.

Bradshaw, C.P., Waasdorp, T.E., and Johnson, S.L. (2015). Overlapping verbal, relational, physical, and electronic forms of bullying in adolescence: Influence of school context. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 494-508.

Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. The Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336-371.

Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O.R., and Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people. Copenhagen, Denmark: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe.

Eisenberg, M.E., and Aalsma, M.C. (2005). Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (1), 88-91.

Espelage, D.L., and Swearer, S.M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365-383.

Farrington, D., and Ttofi, M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5 (6).

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R.K., and Turner, H.A. (2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect , 31 (1), 7-26.

Gladden, R.M., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Hamburger, M.E., and Lumpkin, C.D. (2014). Bullying Surveillance among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education.

Godleski, S.A., Kamper, K.E., Ostrov, J.M., Hart, E.J., and Blakely-McClure, S.J. (2015). Peer victimization and peer rejection during early childhood. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44 (3), 380-392.

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, K.C., and Vivolo, A.M. (2011). Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration, and Bystander Experiences: A Compendium of Assessment Tools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., and Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying—Adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73 (4), 1-9.

Holt, M.K., Vivolo-Kantor, A.M., Polanin, J.R., Holland, K.M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J.L., Wolfe, M., and Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 (2), e496-e509.

Hopkins, L., Taylor, L., Bowen, E., and Wood, C. (2013). A qualitative study investigating adolescents’ understanding of aggression, bullying and violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (4), 685-693.

Hymel, S., and Swearer, S.M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293.

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research. Committee on Prevention of Mental Disorders. P.J. Mrazek and R.J. Haggerty, Editors. Division of Biobehavioral Sciences and Mental Disorders. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2011). The Science of Adolescent Risk-taking: Workshop Report . Committee on the Science of Adolescence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2012). Communications and Technology for Violence Prevention: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014a). The Evidence for Violence Prevention across the Lifespan and around the World: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014b). Strategies for Scaling Effective Family-Focused Preventive Interventions to Promote Children’s Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Health: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2014c). Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying: Workshop Summary . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. (2015). Investing in the Health and Well-Being of Young Adults . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Kim, Y.S., and Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 133-154.

Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8 (1), 107-116.

Kota, R., Schoohs, S., Benson, M., and Moreno, M.A. (2014). Characterizing cyberbullying among college students: Hacking, dirty laundry, and mocking. Societies, 4 (4), 549-560.

McDougall, P., and Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 300.

Monks, C.P., and Smith, P.K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 801-821.

National Institute of Justice. (2015). Comprehensive School Safety Initiative. 2015. Available: http://nij.gov/topics/crime/school-crime/Pages/school-safety-initiative.aspx#about [October 2015].

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2002). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development . Committee on Community-Level Programs for Youth. J. Eccles and J.A. Gootman, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2003). Deadly Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence . Case Studies of School Violence Committee. M.H. Moore, C.V. Petrie, A.A. Barga, and B.L. McLaughlin, Editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. (2009). Preventing Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Disorders among Young People: Progress and Possibilities. Committee on the Prevention of Mental Disorders and Substance Abuse Among Children, Youth, and Young Adults: Research Advances and Promising Interventions. M.E. O’Connell, T. Boat, and K.E. Warner, Editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School. What We Know and Whal We Can Do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 (2), 331-359.

Slonje, R., and Smith, P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49 (2), 147-154.

Smith, P. ., and Monks, C. . (2008). Concepts of bullying: Developmental and cultural aspects. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 101-112.

Sourander, A. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55 (5), 282.

Sticca, F., and Perren, S. (2013). Is cyberbullying worse than traditional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 (5), 739-750.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2015). Safe Schools/Healthy Students. 2015. Available: http://www.samhsa.gov/safe-schools-healthy-students/about [November 2015].

Tanrikulu, I., and Campbell, M. (2015). Correlates of traditional bullying and cyberbullying perpetration among Australian students. Children and Youth Services Review , 55 , 138-146.

Tokunaga, R.S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (3), 277-287.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Safe and Supportive Schools . Available: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-awards-388-million-safe-and-supportive-school-grants [October 2015].

Vaillancourt, T., Trinh, V., McDougall, P., Duku, E., Cunningham, L., Cunningham, C., Hymel, S., and Short, K. (2010). Optimizing population screening of bullying in school-aged children. Journal of School Violence, 9 (3), 233-250.

van Geel, M., Vedder, P., and Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association. Pediatrics, 168 (5), 435-442.

Vivolo, A.M., Holt, M.K., and Massetti, G.M. (2011). Individual and contextual factors for bullying and peer victimization: Implications for prevention. Journal of School Violence, 10 (2), 201-212.

Vlachou, M., Andreou, E., Botsoglou, K., and Didaskalou, E. (2011). Bully/victim problems among preschool children: A review of current research evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 23 (3), 329-358.

Wolke, D., and Lereya, S.T. (2015). Long-term effects of bullying. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 100 (9), 879-885.

Ybarra, M.L., Espelage, D.L., and Mitchell, K.J. (2014). Differentiating youth who are bullied from other victims of peer-aggression: The importance of differential power and repetition. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 (2), 293-300.

This page intentionally left blank.

Bullying has long been tolerated as a rite of passage among children and adolescents. There is an implication that individuals who are bullied must have "asked for" this type of treatment, or deserved it. Sometimes, even the child who is bullied begins to internalize this idea. For many years, there has been a general acceptance and collective shrug when it comes to a child or adolescent with greater social capital or power pushing around a child perceived as subordinate. But bullying is not developmentally appropriate; it should not be considered a normal part of the typical social grouping that occurs throughout a child's life.

Although bullying behavior endures through generations, the milieu is changing. Historically, bulling has occurred at school, the physical setting in which most of childhood is centered and the primary source for peer group formation. In recent years, however, the physical setting is not the only place bullying is occurring. Technology allows for an entirely new type of digital electronic aggression, cyberbullying, which takes place through chat rooms, instant messaging, social media, and other forms of digital electronic communication.

Composition of peer groups, shifting demographics, changing societal norms, and modern technology are contextual factors that must be considered to understand and effectively react to bullying in the United States. Youth are embedded in multiple contexts and each of these contexts interacts with individual characteristics of youth in ways that either exacerbate or attenuate the association between these individual characteristics and bullying perpetration or victimization. Recognizing that bullying behavior is a major public health problem that demands the concerted and coordinated time and attention of parents, educators and school administrators, health care providers, policy makers, families, and others concerned with the care of children, this report evaluates the state of the science on biological and psychosocial consequences of peer victimization and the risk and protective factors that either increase or decrease peer victimization behavior and consequences.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Introduction to School Bullying and Inequality

  • First Online: 22 December 2020

Cite this chapter

research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  • Anthony A. Peguero   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4541-865X 4 &
  • Jun Sung Hong   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-9900 5  

Part of the book series: Springer Series on Child and Family Studies ((SSCFS))

1614 Accesses

1 Citations

In this introductory Chap. 1 , we provide an overview about how this book will review sociological, psychological, criminological, and educational research literature pertaining to school bullying and the associated experiences in bullying and school violence among vulnerable and marginalized youth. It also examines how inequality associated with socioeconomic and social status, family cohesion and interactions, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, race, ethnicity, immigration, and religion, and disabilities and special health needs are significantly associated with youth’s experiences in bullying and presents how a social-ecological framework can inform the problem and address school bullying. This book seeks to bridge gaps in knowledge by addressing not only the individual, intrapersonal, and environmental factors, but also distal level factors and conditions that are specifically relevant to youth, such as culture and law as well as contextualize relevant multi-level factors that foster or inhibit bullying victimization among vulnerable and historically marginalized children and adolescents who are faced with cumulative social inequality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
  • Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bradshaw, C. P. (2017). Handbook on bullying prevention: A life course perspective . NASW Press.

Google Scholar  

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365–383.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 (4), 311–322.

Hong, J. S., Peguero, A. A., Choi, S., Lanesskog, D., Espelage, D. L., & Lee, N. Y. (2014). Social ecology of bullying and peer victimization of Latino and Asian youth in the United States: A review of the literature. Journal of School Violence, 13 (3), 315–338.

Peguero, A. A. (2012). Schools, bullying, and inequality: Intersecting factors and complexities with the stratification of youth victimization at school. Sociology Compass, 6 (5), 402–412.

Watts, I. E., & Erevelles, N. (2004). These deadly times: Reconceptualizing school violence by using critical race theory and disability studies. American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2), 271–299.

Gamoran, A. (2001). American schooling and educational inequality: A forecast for the 21st century. Sociology of Education, 74 , 135–153.

Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools . Broadway Books.

Hong, J. S., Espelage, D. L., & Kral, M. J. (2011). Understanding suicide among sexual minority youth in America: An ecological systems analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 34 (5), 885–894.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2010). Bullying in North American schools . Routledge.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do . Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Keltner, D., Capps, L., Kring, A. M., Young, R. C., & Heerey, E. A. (2001). Just teasing: A conceptual analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 127 (2), 229.

Pascoe, C. J. (2011). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school . University of California Press.

Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). Schools and delinquency . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Finkelhor, D. (2014). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people . New York: Oxford University Press.

McDougall, P., & Vaillancourt, T. (2015). Long-term adult outcomes of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence: Pathways to adjustment and maladjustment. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 300.

Macmillan, R. (2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 1–22.

Macmillan, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: Adolescent victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14 (2), 127–158.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 357–385.

Hong, J. S. (2009). Feasibility of the Olweus bullying prevention program in low-income schools. Journal of School Violence, 8 (1), 81–97.

Melde, C., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2009). The victim-offender overlap and fear of in-school victimization: A longitudinal examination of risk assessment models. Crime & Delinquency, 55 (4), 499–525.

Nofziger, S. (2009). Deviant lifestyles and violent victimization at school. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24 (9), 1494–1517.

Espelage, D. L. (2016). Sexual orientation and gender identity in schools: A call for more research in school psychology—No more excuses. Journal of School Psychology, 54 , 5–8.

Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46 (2), 245–269.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22 (6), 723.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of education (pp. 1643–1647). New York: Elsevier Sciences.

Garcia Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Garcia, H. V., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67 (5), 1891–1914.

Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: The social life of the teenager and its Impact on Education . Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Anthony A. Peguero

School of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Jun Sung Hong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Peguero, A.A., Hong, J.S. (2020). Introduction to School Bullying and Inequality. In: School Bullying. Springer Series on Child and Family Studies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64367-6_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64367-6_1

Published : 22 December 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-64366-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-64367-6

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  • > Bullying in Different Contexts
  • > A history of research into bullying

research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

Book contents

  • Frontmatter
  • List of figures
  • List of tables
  • Notes on contributors
  • 1 A history of research into bullying
  • 2 Peer-victimisation in preschool
  • 3 Bullying in schools: thirty years of research
  • 4 Peer violence in residential children's homes: a unique experience
  • 5 Domestic violence: bullying in the home
  • 6 Juvenile dating and violence
  • 7 Bullying in prisons: bringing research up to date
  • 8 Bullying in the workplace
  • 9 Elder abuse and bullying: exploring theoretical and empirical connections
  • 10 Cyberbullying
  • 11 An overview of bullying and abuse across settings

1 - A history of research into bullying

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

General overview of and rationale for the book

Bullying is widely recognised as being a problem, not only for those individuals involved, but also for the organisation within which it occurs and the wider community. Few people can be unaware of bullying, either having been involved in it (as a perpetrator or target), having witnessed it occurring or seen it reported within the local or national media. Although bullying has long been recognised as an issue that warrants concern and action, empirical research on the topic only really began in the late 1970s. Since this time, there have been many books and journal articles published on this important topic. Work on dealing with and preventing bullying has come from many different quarters, from governments creating laws for dealing with and punishing bullying, and drawing up legal guidelines for institutions to follow with the aim of preventing bullying, to practitioners developing models of intervention and prevention work with those suffering or at risk of being involved in bullying.

We currently have an established body of research focusing on the nature and extent of bullying, as well as highlighting some of the risk factors for involvement in bullying (both individual and situational) across a number of different contexts. Much of this research could be criticised as being somewhat atheoretical and descriptive. However, the authors within this volume have drawn on theory in an attempt to develop models to further our understanding of the phenomenon.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

  • A history of research into bullying
  • By Claire P. Monks , University of Greenwich, Iain Coyne , University of Nottingham
  • Edited by Claire P. Monks , University of Greenwich , Iain Coyne , University of Nottingham
  • Book: Bullying in Different Contexts
  • Online publication: 05 June 2012
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921018.001

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Maedica (Bucur)
  • v.8(2); 2013 Jun

Bullying among High School Students

Delia nursel tÜrkmen.

a Uludağ University, Medical Faculty, Department of Forensic Medicine, Council of Forensic Medicine, Bursa Morgue Department, Bursa, Turkey

Mihai Halis DOKGÖZ

Suzana semra akgÖz.

c Çanakkale 18 Mart University, Medical Faculty, Department of Biostatistics, Çanakkale, Turkey

Bogdan Nicolae Bülent EREN

d Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey, Bursa Morgue Department, Bursa, Turkey

Horatiu Pınar VURAL

e Uludag University, Medical Faculty, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Bursa,Turkey

Horatiu Oğuz POLAT

f Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Social Studies Applied Unıt, Begun Violence Prevention and Research Center, Cleveland-Ohio, USA

Objective: The main aim of this research is to investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviour, its victims and the types of bullying and places of bullying among 14-17 year-old adolescents in a sample of school children in Bursa, Turkey.

Methodology: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was conducted among class 1 and class 2 high school students for identification bullying.

Results: Majority (96.7%) of the students were involved in bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims. For a male student, the likelihood of being involved in violent behaviours was detected to be nearly 8.4 times higher when compared with a female student.

Conclusion: a multidisciplinary approach involving affected children, their parents, school personnel, media, non-govermental organizations, and security units is required to achieve an effective approach for the prevention of violence targeting children in schools as victims and/or perpetrators.

INTRODUCTION

World Health Organization defines bullying as a threat or physical use of force, aiming at the individual, another person, a specific community or group which can result in injury, death, physical damage, some development disorders or deficiency. The concept of bullying at school is not new; however it has been increasing in recent years. There is a crucial increase in studies conducted and the number of news on bullying at school in mass media ( 1 - 3 ). Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students. Despite the common assumption that bullying is a normal part of childhood and encompasses minor teasing and harassment ( 4 ), researchers increasingly find that bullying is a problem that can be detrimental to students' well-being ( 5 - 7 ). This report focuses not only on the prevalence of bullying, but also on those subsets of students who reported being the victims of direct, and indirect bullying, and both of them. Different types of bullying may affect different groups of students, occur in different types of schools, or affect student behavior in different ways. These distinctions allow readers to differentiate between students who were either physically (directly) or socially (indirectly) bullied, and also to identify those students who were bullied both physically and socially ( 4 ). Additional analysis describes the characteristics of students affected by these types of behavior and the characteristics of schools in which these behaviors occur. Because of prior research that suggests victims of bullying may resort to aggressive behaviors in response to being bullied, the extent to which reports of bullying are related to victim behaviors such as weapon carrying, physical fights, fear, and avoidance are explored. Finally, for educators, the academic success of students is of paramount importance. For this reason, self-reported academic performance of bullied students is also examined ( 5 , 8 ). The main aim of this research is to investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviour, its victims and the types of bullying and places of bullying among 14-17 year-old adolescents in a sample of school children in Bursa, Turkey. Bullying is a psychological and pedagogical problem connected with public health. It must be solved by various professionals immediately. ❑

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was conducted among class 1 and class 2 high school students for identification bullying. Research was planned as sectional descriptive study. All class 1 and class 2 high school students from Bursa provincial center were included in the study. The questionnaire form was created by the experts after literature survey. The questionnaire form prepared consisted of 2 sections. The first section encompassed 7 items concerning sociodemographic characteristics of the family, and the second section had 37 items related to the determination of violence among peers. The questionnaire was administered to students in collaboration with school counselors. In guidance of school counselors, after a brief nondirective description, questionnaire was administered to students wishing to participate as volunteers in the study. Total 6127 students agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire was performed in resting hours under the supervision of school counselors in classrooms by students themselves. For statistical analysis, SPSS forWindows 13.0 was used. Variables have been presented on the basis of average and standard deviation and frequency (%). Pearson chi-square TEST, Student's t-test, Spearman's correlation analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all tests. ❑

1. Sociodemographic Characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics, and data related to the students participating in the questionnaire survey were presented in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Sociodemographic characteristics of students participating in the questionnaire surveys.


Female
Male

2879 (47)
3248 (53)
15.68±0.72

Deceased mother
Deceased father
Deceased parents
Separated parents

24 (0.4)
168 (2.8)
5 (0.1)
167 (2.8)

Illiterate
Dropped out of primary school

Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

378 (6.2)
678 (11.1)

853 (14)
922 (15.1)
364 (6)

Illiterate
Dropped out of primary school

Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

54 (0.9)
423 (6.9)

1165 (19.1)
1470 (24.1)
936 (15.4)

Scientific and technical staff, independent business owners and other related professions
Entrepreneurs, directors and upper level managers
Administrative and similar staff
Tradesperson and salesperson
Service sector employees
Employees in Agriculture/Farming/Forestry/Fishery/ Hunting sectors
Non-agricultural employees and vehicle operators

Retired
371 (6.1)

56 (0.9)
21 (0.3)
10 (0.2)
84 (1.4)
8 (0.1)

588 (9.6)

17 (0.3)

Scientific and technical staff, independent business owners and other related professions
Entrepreneurs, directors and upper level managers
Administrative and similar staff
Tradesperson and salesperson
Service sector employees
Employees in Agriculture/Farming/Forestry/Fishery/ Hunting sectors


Retired
1786 (29.1)

464 (7.6)
61 (1)
165 (2.7)
224 (3.7)
155 (2.5)



175 (2.9)

A total of 6127 participants consisted of 2879 (47%) female, and 3248 (53%) male students. Mean ages of the participants (15.68 ± 0.72 years; range: 14-17 years), female (15.65 ± 0.76 years), and male students (15.71 ± 0.69 years) were also determined. Among participants, mothers of 24 (0.4 %), fathers of 168 (2.8%), and both parents of 5 (0.1%) students were deceased. Parents of 167 (2.8%) students were living apart. Students' mothers (n = 2908, 47.6%) and fathers' education (n = 2046, 33.6%) was primary school in the most of the cases and there was correlation between mothers and fathers' educational levels. (Spearman's correlation cefficient rho = 0.571, p < 0.001). Mothers of the majority of the students (81.1%; n = 4972) were housewives, and fathers of 17% (n = 1040) of the students were jobless. Mothers of 922 students (15%) were housewives, while their fathers were jobless as reported by the students themselves.

2. Students involved in Violence as Aggressors and Victims

Majority (96.7%; n = 5926) of the students were involved in bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims. Most (95.8%; n = 5677) of the total of 5926 students involved in bullying behaviours demonstrated physical aggressiveness (95.8%; n = 5677), emotional harassment (48.5%; n = 2875), and verbal assault (25.3%; n = 1499). While victims of these violent acts were subjected to physical (41.2 %; n = 2441), emotional (64.1%; n = 3801), and verbal abuse (47.3%; n = 2805) (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The probability of a male student being involved in violence was 8.4 times more frequent relative to a female student (95% of Confidence Interval = 5.5-12.8). Students whose mothers were businesswomen participated in violent acts 1.6-fold more frequently than children of housewives (95% of Confidence Interval = 1.05-2.43).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is maed-08-143-g001.jpg

a. Aggressors

The distribution of types of aggressive behaviour of the students according to gender, and age groups were presented in Figure ​ Figure2. 2 . When compared with the female students, male students exerted physical violence, emotional assault or verbal abuse more frequently (8.1, 2.6, and 3.1 times more often respectively; p < 0.001 for all types). Frequency of physical, emotional, and verbal violence increased with age (p < 0.001). When compared with a student aged 14 years, a 17-year old student resorted more frequently to physical (almost 2.2 fold increase; p = 0.01), emotional (1.6 fold increase; p = 0.01), and verbal (almost 2 fold increase; p = 0.007) assaults (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is maed-08-143-g002.jpg

Results of multivariate logistic regression model of the association between three types of aggressors and socio-demographic features.


Female
Male

89.1
98.5


< 0.001


8.110


5.944-11.066

14
15
16
17

87.2
94.6
94
94.7
0.017

0.006
NS
0.010

1.0
2.104
1.668
2.170


1.239-3.573
0.987-2.818
1.199-3.927

Illiterate
Dropped out of primary school
Primary school graduate
Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

90.7
97.1
94.1
95
93.2
93.6
0.026

0.010
NS
0.039
NS
NS

1.0
4.414
2.257
2.883
1.991
2.063


1.429-13.630
0.843-6.044
1.057-7.866
0.741-5.354
0.755-5.635

Housewive
Employee

93.7
95.9


0.003


1.637


1.182-2.267

Female
Male

35.1
58.6


< 0.001


2.617


2.357-2.906

14
15
16
17

36.3
45.3
49.1
50.7
0.008

NS
NS
0.010

1.0
1.290
1.418
1.636


0.903-1.842
0.993-2.023
1.124-2.381

Service sector employees
Others

39.4
47.8


0.007


1.475


1.111-1.956

Female
Male

14.1
34.3


< 0.001


3.134


2.754-3.566

14
15
16
17

14.9
22
27.1
27.2
< 0.001

NS
0.017
0.007

1.0
1.444
1.776
1.964


0.898-2.321
1.106-2.850
1.200-3.213

Illiterate
Dropped out of primary school
Primary school graduate
Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

23.1
23.7
22.9
26.5
26.8
34.9
< 0.001

NS
NS
NS
NS
< 0.001

1.0
1.055
1.056
1.238
1.266
1.863


0.775-1.436
0.811-1.375
0.923-1.660
0.947-1.692
1.333-2.604

R - Reference category; NS - No significant

Verbal abuse was observed more frequently (34.9%) among students with university graduate mothers. The probability of verbal violence was 1.5-1.9 times higher among shoolchildren of university graduate mothers when compared with the students whose mothers were of lower educational levels (p < 0.001).

The possibility of emotional bullying exerted by a student whose father working in private/public service sector (employees in hotels, retailers, restaurants, night-clubs, bars, patisseries, movie theaters, beauty salons, casinos, cleaners, etc) was nearly 32.3% lower than a student whose father was employed in other sectors (p = 0.007).

Most (89%) of the children who didn't resort to brute force were not found to be the perpetrators of violence in the neighbourhood. Fifty percent of the children who were frequently or always bullying in school were also detected to exert violence in the neighbourhood, (p < 0.001) (Figure ​ (Figure3). 3 ). Five percent of the students (n = 305) indicated that they were carrying sharp, and cutting instruments like pocket knives, and knives for the purpose of physical assault. Eight percent (n = 253) of the boys, and 2.2% of the girls carried cutting-penetrating instruments like knives, and pocket knives for the purpose of physical assault (p < 0.001).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is maed-08-143-g003.jpg

The distribution of types of victimization related to physical, emotional, and verbal infliction based on gender, and age of the students was presented in Figure ​ Figure4. 4 . A male student was more frequently subjected to physical, emotional, and verbal violence when compared with a female student (almost 2, 1.4, and 2 fold increase respectively; p < 0.001). The possibility of being a victim of physical and verbal bullying decreased with age (p < 0.05). A 15-year-old student suffered more frequently from physical (almost 1.3 – fold increase: p = 0.004), and verbal (almost 1.2 – fold increase: p = 0.035) bullying compared to a 17 year-old student (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is maed-08-143-g004.jpg

Results of multivariate logistic regression model of the association between three types of victimhood and socio-demographic features.


Fmale
Male

31.7
48.4


< 0.001


2.030


1.825-2.259

14
15
16
17

38.4
41.9
40.7
36
0.028
NS
0.004
NS
-

1.208
1.289
1.163
1.0

0.834-1.751
1.086-1.529
0.982-1.377

Illiterate
Dropped out of primary school
Primary school graduate
Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

42.4
45.9
40.8
40.1
36.3
38.8
0.008
-
NS
NS
NS
0.045
NS

1.0
1.147
0.953
0.922
0.773
0.835


0.881-1.492
0.760-1.194
0.715-1.189
0.600-0.995
0.617-1.129

Fmale
Male

58.5
66.8

< 0.001

< 1.422

1.278-1.583

Illiteratee
Dropped out of primary school
Primary school graduate
Secondary school graduate
Lycée graduate
University graduate

69.8
70.6
64.7
61.7
60.5
60.3
0.005
NS
0.001
NS
NS

1.446
1.525
1.176
1.028
1.011
1.0

0.763-2.743
1.180-1.972
0.999-1.385
0.858-1.231
0.852-1.201

Employee
Unemployed

62.1
66.1

0.034

1.171

1.012-1.355

Female
Male

36.6
54.2

< 0.001

2.040

1.840-2.262

14
15
16
17

35.4
46.3
47.3
42
0.038
NS
0.035
0.045

0.828
1.194
1.181
1.0

0.570-1.202
1.013-1.408
1.004-1.390

Housewive
Employee

44.9
50.1
0.001
1.241
1.089-1.413

The probability of being a victim of violence was nearly 23% times lower for a student having a lycee graduate mother rather than a schoolchild of an illiterate mother (p < 0.05). A schoolchild of an employed mother was almost 1.2 times more likely to suffer from emotional harassment than a child of a housewife (p = 0.001).

Illiterate fathers of 54.9% of schoolaged children were unemployed, while jobless fathers of 30% of the students had dropped out during primary education. Schoolchild of an unemployed father was almost 1.2 times more prone to be victimized emotionally relative to a child of an employed father (p < 0.05).

Both Victimized and Aggresive students

A 41.7% of the physically aggressive students were also victims of physical bullying, while 79.9% of emotionally offensive students were also suffered from emotional harassment. Still 80.7% of the students who exerted verbal violence also suffered from verbal abuse (Figure ​ (Figure5). 5 ). As compared with a female student, male students were almost 2,2 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of physical violence (95% Confidence Interval = 1.9-2.4), 2,3 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of emotional assault (95% Confidence Interval = 2.1-2.6) and 3 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of verbal abuse (95% Confidence Interval = 2.5-3.4). As compared with a 17-year-old student, a 15-year old student was almost 1.3 times more likely to be both victim, and perpetrator of physical violence (95% Confidence Interval = 1.1-1.6). As observed in our investigation, the probability of being both victims and perpetrators of physical aggression among schoolchildren of the mothers with a lycée (35%) or university (37.1%) education was at a minimal level. A student raised by a mother graduated from a lycée was 30.4% less likely to be both executers, and victims of physical violence relative to those of illiterate mothers (p < 0.05). ❑

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is maed-08-143-g005.jpg

Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students ( 4 ). This study focuses not only on the prevalence of bullying, but also on those subsets of students who reported being the victims of physical, verbal and/or emotional bullying.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Our study population consisted of male students with a mean age of 15.68 ± 0.72 years (range: 14-17 years). As for sociodemographic properties, lower educational level, possesion of a job of inferior quality have been revealed to be important factors in the exertion of bullying behaviours (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Prevalence of being both aggressors, and victims was reportedly higher among students aged between 8-16 years. In a study conducted on 62 adolescents aged 16 years, 15% of the male, and 7% of the female students demonstrated violent behaviours. Again, 72 adolescents (12%), 13% of boys, and 12% of the girls were detected to be victims of violence, while 13 adolescents were both perpetrators, and victims of violence. Persistency of being both perpetrators, and victims of violence was investigated among adolescents aged between 8-16 years, and 18 of 38 girls at 16, and 27 of 30 girls at 8 years of age were detected to be victims of violence. Educational levels, socioeconomic status, composition of the families, and changes in the marital status (divorce, re-marriage etc) were observed for a period of 8 years, and a correlation between being a victim of violence at 8 years of age, and infliction of violence at age 16 could not be detected ( 9 ). In compliance with our study, studies performed in Turkey have emphasized that demonstration of violence was encountered mostly among adolescents aged 15-16 years ( 2 , 10 ).

Students involved in violence as aggressors or victims

Majority (99.2%; n = 3223) of male, and female (93.9%; n = 2703) students were detected to be involved in one form of bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims at one time of their lives. For a male student, the likelihood of being involved in violent behaviours was detected to be nearly 8.4 times higher when compared with a female student (p < 0.001). A statistically significant correlation was not found between the involvement in violence, and age of the student, familial unity, level of education, and occupation of the parents (p > 0.05). A total of 5926 students involved in violence, demonstrated physical (95.8%; n = 5667), emotional (48.5%; n = 2875), and verbal (25.3%; n = 1499) bullying behaviours. The students involved in violence were also suffered from physical (41.2%; n = 2441), emotional (64.1%; n = 3801), and verbal (47.3%; n = 2805) bullying behaviours (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). A survey conducted in 1994, 1998, and 2002 in Lithuania detected that one in every 3 children were the victims of various types of violence exerted regularly by their peers. (During all three surveys conducted in 1994, 1998 and 2002, about one in three students reported that they had been a victim of regular bullying. A higher percentage of boys (36%) reported being bullied than girls (32%, p < 0.05). This study demonstrated that students living in rural areas were 1.5 times more frequently bullied than those in the cities, and 40% the boys and 28% of the girls inflicted violence on their peers. When incidence rates of bullying in different countries were examined, the highest rate was detected in Lithuania, followed by Austria, Swiss, Germany, and Russia in decreasing frequency ( 11 - 14 ).

The incidence of physical, emotional or verbal violence by a male student was found to be higher (8.1, 2.6, and 3.1 times more frequent, respectively) in comparison with a female student (p < 0.001). Usage of physical, emotional, and verbal violence increased with age (p < 0.001). When compared with a student aged 14 years, a 17-year old student resorted more frequently to physical (almost 2.2 – fold increase; p = 0.01), emotional (1.6 fold increase; p = 0.01), and verbal (almost 2 fold increase; p = 0.007) assaults.

A concordance was detected between lower educational level of the family, and verbal, physical, and emotional aggression. Students with employed parents were found to be more prone to resort to physical bullying. In a study, 5% (n = 305) of the students reported that they had carried cutting, and penetrating instruments such as pocket knives, and knives with the intention of bullying. An 8% (n = 253) of the boys, and 2.2% (n = 52) of the girls using physical violence carried cutting, and penetrating instruments such as pocket knives, and knives for the intention of bullying (p < 0.001). A survey among 500 children detected evidence of bullying in 31.4% of the cases. In schools for girls, the incidence of bullying was detected to be 18%, while it was 38.2% in coeducational mixed schools. The incidence of bullying increased with age, and higher grades. Bullying was mostly encountered in the form of verbal violence such as nicknaming, followed by abusive language, rumoring, insult, and isolation Infliction of physical harm was seen at a rate of 16 percent. Feeling oneself badly, desiring to be left alone, and tearing his/her clothes etc. were also observed. School phobia, vomiting, and sleeping disorders were seen in these children. Frequently, headache was seen to be a cardinal symptom of girls, and boys subjected to bullying behaviours ( 15 ).

Statistically significant correlations were seen between types of physical, emotional, and verbal bullying and gender, and age of the students. The likelihood of being a victim of physical, emotional, and verbal bullying was higher among male students rather than female students (almost 2, 1.4, and 2 fold increase respectively; p < 0.001). A study demonstrated that physical and verbal victimization decreases with age (p < 0.05). Minimal degree of physical victimization was observed among students whose mothers were lycée (36.3%), or university (38.8%) graduates. The student whose parents had a lower level of education carries a higher potential of being a victim of bullying. In the study group where male students with a mean age of 13 consisted 50 % of the study population, cases were attending primary (40%), secondary (26%) , and higher levels of (34%) education These students were subjected to violence at least once for a duration of one year. This incidence was 3 times higher than those found in other studies. Male students were more frequently involved in bullying behaviours. In higher education male students were more frequently involved in bullying behaviours, while in primary, and secondary education there was no difference between genders. The frequency of bullying behaviours decreased in higher grades. Bullying was more frequently observed in families with separated parents or in the absence of two biologic parents ( 16 ).

Students both as victims and perpetrators of violence

Many students were detected to be both victims, and perpetrators of physical (41.7%), emotional (79.9%), and verbal (80.7%) violence (Figure 6).

Compared with a female student, the probability of being both perpetrator, and victim of a physical, emotional, and verbal bullying for a male student was increased by 2.2 (p < 0.01), 2.3 (p < 0.001) and 2.3 (p < 0.001) times, respectively. The incidence of being a victim decreased with age. Among students whose parents were lycée (35%) or university (37.1%) graduates, physical aggressiveness, and victimhood have been observedly at a minimal level. Compared with a schoolchild of an unemployed father, and a housewife mother, the child of employed parents was 1.6-fold more likely to be both victim, and a perpetrator of a verbal bullying (p = 0.001). According to investigations conducted in Italy, boys were resorting to bullying more frequently than girls, while both genders were becoming victims of violence with a similar incidence. Boys were more likely to inflict direct physical aggression with the intent of causing physical harm, whereas girls were more likely to inflict indirect forms of aggression with the intent of causing psychological harm. However, there were no significant gender differences in direct verbal aggression. Researches have indicated that bullying is often exerted in the classrooms, but it is also encountered in other parts of the school, like corridors, and rest rooms, as well. Overall, 56.7% of all students had never been bullied in the last 3 months, 13.9% were bullied once or twice, 14.7% sometimes and 14.7% once a week or more often. Girls tended to be victimized more than boys; 34_5% of girls, and 24_8% of boys, had been victimized sometimes or more often. Boys were significantly more likely to suffer from various types of direct bullying, whereas girls were slightly more likely to suffer from indirect forms of bullying (e.g. being rejected, rumours spread about them). Significant differences emerged as for types of direct bullying, especially for being threatened and marginally for being physically hurt. There were no significant gender differences between direct verbal and indirect bullying; boys were almost as likely as girls to suffer from indirect bullying. An 18.5 % of the girls, and 20.4 % of the boys were subjected to bullying behaviours exerted by both girls, and boys. Over half of all students had bullied others, and nearly half had been bullied in Italy. Boys bullied more than girls, and girls were somewhat more likely than boys to be bullied sometimes or more often ( 17 ).

In conclusion, a multidisciplinary approach involving affected children, their parents, school personnel, media, non-govermental organizations, and security units is required to achieve an effective approach for the prevention of violence targeting children in schools as victims and/or perpetrators. In consideration of the impact of child's familial, and environmental cultural factors, and school ambiance on violence as well, educational efforts should be exerted both to eliminate potential adversities and also prevent bullying behaviours in schools.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

none declared.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

BULLYING CHAPTERS 1 AND 2

Profile image of Francesca Estrella

Related Papers

Mark Leo Hapitan

This is a research proposal sample. This will serve as your guide in making your research proposals. Thanks to all of my followers.

research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

Encyclopedia of Social Work Online

Jonathan B Singer

Bullying is the most common form of violence in schools and has been shown to disrupt the emotional and social development of both the targets and the perpetrators of bullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Bullying can be physical, verbal, relational, and direct or indirect. There are well-established age and sex trends (Olweus, 1993; Smith, Madsen, & Moody, 1999). There has been considerable research on bullying-prevention programs and scholarship on best-practice guidelines for school social workers (Dupper, 2013). An emerging concern is with the use of electronic and Internet devices in bullying, referred to as “cyberbullying.” In this article we define bullying and cyberbullying; discuss risk factors associated with being a bully, a victim, and a bully-victim; describe prevention and intervention programs; and discuss emerging trends in both bullying and cyberbullying.

Institutional Multidsciplinary Research and Development ( IMRaD)

DR. DAVID C . BUENO

Despite many strategies put in places to control bullying in school, the problem persists. This study focused on the characterization of bullying occurrences among senior high school learners (SHSL) in a Catholic school. The researchers utilized the descriptive cross-sectional design, closed-ended surveyquestionnaire, and Descriptive Statistics for data analysis. Verbal, emotional and physical bullying was prevalent almost weekly among SHSL. The bullying victims were usually thin, fat, considered ugly, talk or sound differently, shy, and those with low self-esteem. The bullies were cool and wanted to feel superior, powerful, and usually, have psychological and family-related problems. There was a tendency for the bullies to feel better and impress others. Reporting to family members, school counselors and authorities, being absent from school, and avoiding the bullies were the common strategies manifested by the bullied learners. The results indicated that bullying was prevalent and a problem in the school setting. This study demonstrated that if school authorities can bring their ideas together with a plan to help learners and other adults identify bullying, the negative behavior as the effect of bullying may be decreased or prevented. The school authorities may enhance prevention strategies towards a safer school environment.

This study focused on the prevalence of bullying among senior high school learners (SHSL) in a Catholic school. The researchers utilized the descriptive cross-sectional design, closed-ended survey-questionnaire, and descriptive statistics for data analysis. All the senior high school teachers teaching among over 1,500 SHSL participated in the study. Verbal, emotional and physical bullying were prevalent almost weekly among SHSL. The bullying victims were usually thin, fat, considered ugly, talk or sound differently, shy, and those with low self-esteem. The bullies were cool and wanted to feel superior, powerful, and usually have psychological and family-related problems. There was a tendency for the bullies to feel better and impress others. Bullying behavior was a result of being from a broken home, copying parents' aggressive behavior, watching violent films, teachers' poor classroom management, retaliation for being bullied in the past, and feeling older or stronger than others, which may result to being fearful, lonely, and depressed. Reporting to family members, school counselors and authorities, being absent from school, and avoiding the bullies are the common strategies manifested by the bullied learners. The results indicated that bullying is prevalent and a problem in the school setting. Results indicated that bullying is a problem in the catholic school setting. This study demonstrated that if school authorities can bring their ideas together with a plan to help learners and other adults identify bullying, the negative behavior as effect of bullying may be decreased or prevented. The school authorities may enhance the prevention strategies towards safer school environment.

Lorraine D Phillips

Abstract In suburban schools in Western Pennsylvania, students, educators, parents, and community members are experiencing the negative effects caused by school bullying. Some educators cannot identify bullying, do not perceive bullying as problematic, or are not trained to intervene in bullying events. The purpose of this quasi-experimental, single group, pretest/posttest design study was to determine if implementing a bullying prevention program significantly changed educators’ perceptions of bullying. James’s theory of self-perception provided the framework for this study to determine educators’ behaviors toward bullying. Sixty presurveys and 50 postsurveys (Bully Index Scale) were completed by educators on SurveyMonkey.com. Data were entered into SPSS and a MANCOVA was performed. According to study results, there was a change in how educators perceived bullying after training and implementation of the bullying prevention program. Data analysis was used to disclose significant changes in educators’ perceptions overall and between male and female educators, altering perceptions may influence positive behavioral changes. Recommendations following this study include sharing findings with the district and bullying committees and continued staff training. Educators have an obligation to understand their perceptions of bullying before interacting with students and intervening in bullying events. Therefore, a positive social change would include self-assessment and bullying prevention training for all school district employees and preservice teachers.

Dianna T Kenny

This paper addresses the types, causes and appropriate responses to bullying of young people in schools and workplaces

This study focused on the characterization of bullying occurrences among senior high school learners (SHSL) in a Catholic school. The researchers utilized the descriptive cross-sectional design, closed-ended survey-questionnaire, and descriptive Statistics for data analysis. All the senior high school teachers teaching among over 1,500 SHSL participated in the study. Verbal, emotional and physical bullying were prevalent almost weekly among SHSL. The bullying victims were usually thin, fat, considered ugly, talk or sound differently, shy, and those with low self-esteem. The bullies were cool and wanted to feel superior, powerful, and usually have psychological and family-related problems. There was a tendency for the bullies to feel better and impress others. Bullying behavior was a result of being from a broken home, copying parents' aggressive behavior, watching violent films, teachers' poor classroom management, retaliation for being bullied in the past, and feeling older or stronger than others, which may result to being fearful, lonely, and depressed. Reporting to family members, school counselors and authorities, being absent from school, and avoiding the bullies were the common strategies manifested by the bullied learners. The results indicated that bullying was prevalent and a problem in the school setting. This study demonstrated that if school authorities can bring their ideas together with a plan to help learners and other adults identify bullying, the negative behavior as effect of bullying may be decreased or prevented. The school authorities may enhance the prevention strategies towards safer school environment.

Hanh Nguyen Chanh Ngoc

This study investigates the nature and the extent of adolescences' experience of cyberbullying. A survey study of 264 students from three junior high schools was conducted. In this article, 'cyberbullying' refers to bullying via electronic communication tools. The results show that close to half of the students were bully victims and about one in four had been cyber-bullied. Over half of the students reported that they knew someone being cyberbullied. Almost half of the cyberbullies used electronic means to harass others more than three times. The majority of the cyber-bully victims and bystanders did not report the incidents to adults. When gender was considered, significant differences were identified in terms of bullying and cyber-bullying. Males were more likely to be bullies and cyberbullies than their female counterparts. In addition, female cyberbully victims were more likely to inform adults than their male counterparts.

Gilberto Marzano , velta lubkina

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Shahe Kazarian

Cecilia L . Calub

Zopito Marini

Izabela Zych

arta dodaj , Kristina Sesar

Jo Dominado

Laurence dela cruz

Margarette Bayer

Journal of Criminal Justice

Thomas Holt

Nicolette Reyhani

Deviant Behavior

Sameer Hinduja , Justin W . Patchin

Miggy Baluyut

Alina Triantafyllou

Davi Ramkallawan

Elementary School Journal

Sheri Bauman

School Mental Health

Maggi Price

Computer & Education, 63, 227-239.

Yun-yin Huang

Iwona Gn , Shelley Hymel

Jonte Taylor

Katie Davis , Mania Orand

Tiffany Jones

Tonya Davis

Jaana Juvonen

Warren Robin

AKAPO OLUSEGUN

Computers in Humans Behavior

María Elche

Annual Review of Psychology

Educational Psychology Review

Renée DePalma

Trauma, violence & abuse

michael kral

Leslie Tutty

Debra Pepler , Faye Mishna , J. Wiener

Faye Mishna , Tahany Gadalla

Harrison Oakes

John Kibuutu

International Journal of Advanced Research (IJAR)

IJAR Indexing

Jessy Minney

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Nafsika Antoniadou

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

IMAGES

  1. Research Paper On Stop Bullying

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  2. Complete Research Paper About Bullying

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  3. Causes and Effects of School Bullying

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  4. Research paper on bullying guidelines

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  5. Complete Research Paper About Bullying

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

  6. Introduction to Research Papers on Bullying and Bullying Research.docx

    research paper about bullying chapter 1 to 5

VIDEO

  1. Great essay and topic about bullying

  2. Data says bullying in schools on the rise again

  3. The bullying

  4. Using data to monitor and prevent bullying in schools [full story]

  5. TOP-10 Essay Topics about Bullying

  6. Expanding perspectives on cyberbullying

COMMENTS

  1. PDF The Perception of Students About School Bullying and How It Affects

    study extends to the nature of school bullying, the perception of students about school bullying, students experiences of bullying as related to academic performance and bullying types, f bullyingPossible policy solution whose implementations must reduce bu. se being bullied to report about it. The research que.

  2. 1 Introduction

    Given the limited research on bullying specifically and potential to learn from other areas of victimization, the study committee will review the relevant research and practice-based literatures on peer victimization, including physical, verbal, relational, and cyber, from early childhood through adolescence.

  3. PDF Chapter 1 Introduction to School Bullying and Inequality

    AbstractIn this introductory Chap. 1, we provide an overview about how this book will review sociological, psychological, criminological, and educational research literature pertaining to school bullying and the associated experiences in bullying and school violence among vulnerable and marginalized youth. It also examines how inequality associated with socioeconomic and social status, family ...

  4. Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions

    This article reviews the current research on bullying in schools, its causes, consequences, and prevention strategies, and provides practical guidance for educators and practitioners.

  5. PDF Microsoft Word

    The research results indicated that school bullying exists in all schools regardless if they are governmental or private ones. The study also concluded that school bullying affect student's academic achievement either victims or the bullies. Keywords: school bullying, academic achievement, teachers

  6. The Sociology of Bullying: Power, Status and Aggression Among Adolescents

    A broad division of the key topics can be outlined in the following way: Definitions and how to methodologically approach bullying (Chapters 1, 2, 4, 5, 8); The role of status in bullying (Chapters 3, 7, 8); Homophobic and gendered norms and how they are executed through bullying practices (Chapters 4, 5, 6); Social difference in bullying ...

  7. Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice

    This chapter describes the current state of research focused on estimating rates of bullying and cyberbullying in the United States and based on the findings from four major, federally funded, nationally representative samples.

  8. Four Decades of Research on School Bullying: An Introduction

    This article provides an introductory overview of findings from the past 40 years of research on bullying among school-aged children and youth. Research on definitional and assessment issues in studying bullying and victimization is reviewed, and data on prevalence rates, stability, and forms of bullying be-havior are summarized, setting the stage for the 5 articles that comprise this American ...

  9. PDF Microsoft Word

    The Impact of Bullying on Academic Success for Students With and Without Exceptionalities By Nadine Block A research paper submitted in conformity with the requirements For the degree of Master of Teaching Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto

  10. Bullying in schools: the research background (Chapter 1)

    This chapter discusses what we mean by 'bullying'; summarises some recent research findings on the nature of bullying; discusses the results of large-scale, school-based interventions; and raises issues for future research and practice.

  11. Five decades of research on school bullying: What have we learned?

    Abstract. It is only in the last five decades that school bullying has become a major focus in psychological and educational research. This chapter outlines how research on school bullying has unfolded during that time and describes some of the current understandings of the problem and our efforts to address it. Following a description of the ...

  12. Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying perpetration

    1.5. What do the findings of this review mean? The findings indicate that school‐based bullying intervention and prevention programs can be effective in reducing both bullying perpetration and victimization, although the effect is, overall, modest.

  13. PDF Students' Perceptions of Bullying After the Fact: A Qualitative Study

    indicated that "1/3 of middle school students felt unsafe at school because of bullying and did not report such behaviors…" (Bosworth et al., 1999, pp. 341-342) In this same study, it was demonstrated that students did not report bullying behaviors for a variety of

  14. A history of research into bullying (Chapter 1)

    Although bullying has long been recognised as an issue that warrants concern and action, empirical research on the topic only really began in the late 1970s. Since this time, there have been many books and journal articles published on this important topic. Work on dealing with and preventing bullying has come from many different quarters, from ...

  15. CH 1-5 Final

    CH 1-5 FINAL - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. This document discusses bullying and its effects on academic performance. It defines bullying as unwanted aggressive behavior among children that often occurs in school. Bullying can cause mental stress, depression, and even suicide in victims. It negatively impacts academic ...

  16. Bullying among High School Students

    For this reason, self-reported academic performance of bullied students is also examined ( 5, 8 ). The main aim of this research is to investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviour, its victims and the types of bullying and places of bullying among 14-17 year-old adolescents in a sample of school children in Bursa, Turkey.

  17. Thesis the Impact of Bullying and Act Variables on Meaning in Life for

    being, making it animporta. t target for helping adolescents flourish and develop. Emerging research suggests,however, t. Bullying victimization and perpetration, prevalent negative social events in the lives of many. , may degrade the opportunity for adolescents. o experience a meaningful life, butthis hypothesis.

  18. The Impact of Bullying on Academic Performance of ...

    reported bullying in the last academic year [3]. Another nationwide analysis found that one quarter registered to bully, the fourth recorded mocking and insulting, and the fourth was harassed [4 ...

  19. Campus Bullying in the Senior High School: A Qualitative Case Study

    Based on the narrative and thematic analysis, study revealed that victims of bullying experienced name-calling or verbal abuse, physical bullying, and social discrimination.

  20. " EFFECTS OF BULLYING " A RESEARCH STUDY

    The bullying is one of the most frequent forms of school violence which affects about one third of the students' population. Within the present paper, we wanted to present a short synthesis regarding the stage of the researches from the area by first analyzing the prevalence of the school violence and the existing differences according to ...

  21. The Impact of Bullying in Adolescents at School

    The Impact of Bullying in Adolescents at School A research paper presented to the Faculty of the English and Foreign Language Department in partial fulfillment of the requirement in English Communication 2 Submitted by: 1.

  22. CHAPTER 1 Cyber Bullying: A Cursory Review

    CHAPTER 1. Cyber Bullying: A Cursory Review. Tan Kim Hua. Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. INTRODUCTION. The advent of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the late 1980s has brought a lot of ...

  23. BULLYING CHAPTERS 1 AND 2

    Bullying is the most common form of violence in schools and has been shown to disrupt the emotional and social development of both the targets and the perpetrators of bullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Bullying can be physical, verbal, relational, and direct or indirect. There are well-established age and sex trends (Olweus, 1993; Smith ...