research paper example about bullying

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2021

Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study

• Håkan Källmén 1 &
• Mats Hallgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-2403 2  

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume  15 , Article number:  74 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

84k Accesses

12 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

To examine recent trends in bullying and mental health problems among adolescents and the association between them.

A questionnaire measuring mental health problems, bullying at school, socio-economic status, and the school environment was distributed to all secondary school students aged 15 (school-year 9) and 18 (school-year 11) in Stockholm during 2014, 2018, and 2020 (n = 32,722). Associations between bullying and mental health problems were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusting for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors.

The prevalence of bullying remained stable and was highest among girls in year 9; range = 4.9% to 16.9%. Mental health problems increased; range = + 1.2% (year 9 boys) to + 4.6% (year 11 girls) and were consistently higher among girls (17.2% in year 11, 2020). In adjusted models, having been bullied was detrimentally associated with mental health (OR = 2.57 [2.24–2.96]). Reports of mental health problems were four times higher among boys who had been bullied compared to those not bullied. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.4 times higher.

Conclusions

Exposure to bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems. Boys appear to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls.

Introduction

Bullying involves repeated hurtful actions between peers where an imbalance of power exists [ 1 ]. Arseneault et al. [ 2 ] conducted a review of the mental health consequences of bullying for children and adolescents and found that bullying is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm and suicidality. Bullying was shown to have detrimental effects that persist into late adolescence and contribute independently to mental health problems. Updated reviews have presented evidence indicating that bullying is causative of mental illness in many adolescents [ 3 , 4 ].

There are indications that mental health problems are increasing among adolescents in some Nordic countries. Hagquist et al. [ 5 ] examined trends in mental health among Scandinavian adolescents (n = 116, 531) aged 11–15 years between 1993 and 2014. Mental health problems were operationalized as difficulty concentrating, sleep disorders, headache, stomach pain, feeling tense, sad and/or dizzy. The study revealed increasing rates of adolescent mental health problems in all four counties (Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), with Sweden experiencing the sharpest increase among older adolescents, particularly girls. Worsening adolescent mental health has also been reported in the United Kingdom. A study of 28,100 school-aged adolescents in England found that two out of five young people scored above thresholds for emotional problems, conduct problems or hyperactivity [ 6 ]. Female gender, deprivation, high needs status (educational/social), ethnic background, and older age were all associated with higher odds of experiencing mental health difficulties.

Bullying is shown to increase the risk of poor mental health and may partly explain these detrimental changes. Le et al. [ 7 ] reported an inverse association between bullying and mental health among 11–16-year-olds in Vietnam. They also found that poor mental health can make some children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying at school. Bayer et al. [ 8 ] examined links between bullying at school and mental health among 8–9-year-old children in Australia. Those who experienced bullying more than once a week had poorer mental health than children who experienced bullying less frequently. Friendships moderated this association, such that children with more friends experienced fewer mental health problems (protective effect). Hysing et al. [ 9 ] investigated the association between experiences of bullying (as a victim or perpetrator) and mental health, sleep disorders, and school performance among 16–19 year olds from Norway (n = 10,200). Participants were categorized as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (that is, victims who also bullied others). All three categories were associated with worse mental health, school performance, and sleeping difficulties. Those who had been bullied also reported more emotional problems, while those who bullied others reported more conduct disorders [ 9 ].

As most adolescents spend a considerable amount of time at school, the school environment has been a major focus of mental health research [ 10 , 11 ]. In a recent review, Saminathen et al. [ 12 ] concluded that school is a potential protective factor against mental health problems, as it provides a socially supportive context and prepares students for higher education and employment. However, it may also be the primary setting for protracted bullying and stress [ 13 ]. Another factor associated with adolescent mental health is parental socio-economic status (SES) [ 14 ]. A systematic review indicated that lower parental SES is associated with poorer adolescent mental health [ 15 ]. However, no previous studies have examined whether SES modifies or attenuates the association between bullying and mental health. Similarly, it remains unclear whether school related factors, such as school grades and the school environment, influence the relationship between bullying and mental health. This information could help to identify those adolescents most at risk of harm from bullying.

To address these issues, we investigated the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems among Swedish adolescents aged 15–18 years between 2014 and 2020 using a population-based school survey. We also examined associations between bullying at school and mental health problems adjusting for relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and school-related factors. We hypothesized that: (1) bullying and adolescent mental health problems have increased over time; (2) There is an association between bullying victimization and mental health, so that mental health problems are more prevalent among those who have been victims of bullying; and (3) that school-related factors would attenuate the association between bullying and mental health.

Participants

The Stockholm school survey is completed every other year by students in lower secondary school (year 9—compulsory) and upper secondary school (year 11). The survey is mandatory for public schools, but voluntary for private schools. The purpose of the survey is to help inform decision making by local authorities that will ultimately improve students’ wellbeing. The questions relate to life circumstances, including SES, schoolwork, bullying, drug use, health, and crime. Non-completers are those who were absent from school when the survey was completed (< 5%). Response rates vary from year to year but are typically around 75%. For the current study data were available for 2014, 2018 and 2020. In 2014; 5235 boys and 5761 girls responded, in 2018; 5017 boys and 5211 girls responded, and in 2020; 5633 boys and 5865 girls responded (total n = 32,722). Data for the exposure variable, bullied at school, were missing for 4159 students, leaving 28,563 participants in the crude model. The fully adjusted model (described below) included 15,985 participants. The mean age in grade 9 was 15.3 years (SD = 0.51) and in grade 11, 17.3 years (SD = 0.61). As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5). Details of the survey are available via a website [ 16 ], and are described in a previous paper [ 17 ].

Students completed the questionnaire during a school lesson, placed it in a sealed envelope and handed it to their teacher. Student were permitted the entire lesson (about 40 min) to complete the questionnaire and were informed that participation was voluntary (and that they were free to cancel their participation at any time without consequences). Students were also informed that the Origo Group was responsible for collection of the data on behalf of the City of Stockholm.

Study outcome

Mental health problems were assessed by using a modified version of the Psychosomatic Problem Scale [ 18 ] shown to be appropriate for children and adolescents and invariant across gender and years. The scale was later modified [ 19 ]. In the modified version, items about difficulty concentrating and feeling giddy were deleted and an item about ‘life being great to live’ was added. Seven different symptoms or problems, such as headaches, depression, feeling fear, stomach problems, difficulty sleeping, believing it’s great to live (coded negatively as seldom or rarely) and poor appetite were used. Students who responded (on a 5-point scale) that any of these problems typically occurs ‘at least once a week’ were considered as having indicators of a mental health problem. Cronbach alpha was 0.69 across the whole sample. Adding these problem areas, a total index was created from 0 to 7 mental health symptoms. Those who scored between 0 and 4 points on the total symptoms index were considered to have a low indication of mental health problems (coded as 0); those who scored between 5 and 7 symptoms were considered as likely having mental health problems (coded as 1).

Primary exposure

Experiences of bullying were measured by the following two questions: Have you felt bullied or harassed during the past school year? Have you been involved in bullying or harassing other students during this school year? Alternatives for the first question were: yes or no with several options describing how the bullying had taken place (if yes). Alternatives indicating emotional bullying were feelings of being mocked, ridiculed, socially excluded, or teased. Alternatives indicating physical bullying were being beaten, kicked, forced to do something against their will, robbed, or locked away somewhere. The response alternatives for the second question gave an estimation of how often the respondent had participated in bullying others (from once to several times a week). Combining the answers to these two questions, five different categories of bullying were identified: (1) never been bullied and never bully others; (2) victims of emotional (verbal) bullying who have never bullied others; (3) victims of physical bullying who have never bullied others; (4) victims of bullying who have also bullied others; and (5) perpetrators of bullying, but not victims. As the number of positive cases in the last three categories was low (range = 3–15 cases) bully categories 2–4 were combined into one primary exposure variable: ‘bullied at school’.

Assessment year was operationalized as the year when data was collected: 2014, 2018, and 2020. Age was operationalized as school grade 9 (15–16 years) or 11 (17–18 years). Gender was self-reported (boy or girl). The school situation To assess experiences of the school situation, students responded to 18 statements about well-being in school, participation in important school matters, perceptions of their teachers, and teaching quality. Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘fully agree’. To reduce the 18-items down to their essential factors, we performed a principal axis factor analysis. Results showed that the 18 statements formed five factors which, according to the Kaiser criterion (eigen values > 1) explained 56% of the covariance in the student’s experience of the school situation. The five factors identified were: (1) Participation in school; (2) Interesting and meaningful work; (3) Feeling well at school; (4) Structured school lessons; and (5) Praise for achievements. For each factor, an index was created that was dichotomised (poor versus good circumstance) using the median-split and dummy coded with ‘good circumstance’ as reference. A description of the items included in each factor is available as Additional file 1 . Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed with three questions about the education level of the student’s mother and father (dichotomized as university degree versus not), and the amount of spending money the student typically received for entertainment each month (> SEK 1000 [approximately $120] versus less). Higher parental education and more spending money were used as reference categories. School grades in Swedish, English, and mathematics were measured separately on a 7-point scale and dichotomized as high (grades A, B, and C) versus low (grades D, E, and F). High school grades were used as the reference category.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence of mental health problems and bullying at school are presented using descriptive statistics, stratified by survey year (2014, 2018, 2020), gender, and school year (9 versus 11). As noted, we reduced the 18-item questionnaire assessing school function down to five essential factors by conducting a principal axis factor analysis (see Additional file 1 ). We then calculated the association between bullying at school (defined above) and mental health problems using multivariable logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis). To assess the contribution of SES and school-related factors to this association, three models are presented: Crude, Model 1 adjusted for demographic factors: age, gender, and assessment year; Model 2 adjusted for Model 1 plus SES (parental education and student spending money), and Model 3 adjusted for Model 2 plus school-related factors (school grades and the five factors identified in the principal factor analysis). These covariates were entered into the regression models in three blocks, where the final model represents the fully adjusted analyses. In all models, the category ‘not bullied at school’ was used as the reference. Pseudo R-square was calculated to estimate what proportion of the variance in mental health problems was explained by each model. Unlike the R-square statistic derived from linear regression, the Pseudo R-square statistic derived from logistic regression gives an indicator of the explained variance, as opposed to an exact estimate, and is considered informative in identifying the relative contribution of each model to the outcome [ 20 ]. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.0.

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Estimates of the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems across the 12 strata of data (3 years × 2 school grades × 2 genders) are shown in Table 1 . The prevalence of bullying at school increased minimally (< 1%) between 2014 and 2020, except among girls in grade 11 (2.5% increase). Mental health problems increased between 2014 and 2020 (range = 1.2% [boys in year 11] to 4.6% [girls in year 11]); were three to four times more prevalent among girls (range = 11.6% to 17.2%) compared to boys (range = 2.6% to 4.9%); and were more prevalent among older adolescents compared to younger adolescents (range = 1% to 3.1% higher). Pooling all data, reports of mental health problems were four times more prevalent among boys who had been victims of bullying compared to those who reported no experiences with bullying. The corresponding figure for girls was two and a half times as prevalent.

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Table 2 shows the association between bullying at school and mental health problems after adjustment for relevant covariates. Demographic factors, including female gender (OR = 3.87; CI 3.48–4.29), older age (OR = 1.38, CI 1.26–1.50), and more recent assessment year (OR = 1.18, CI 1.13–1.25) were associated with higher odds of mental health problems. In Model 2, none of the included SES variables (parental education and student spending money) were associated with mental health problems. In Model 3 (fully adjusted), the following school-related factors were associated with higher odds of mental health problems: lower grades in Swedish (OR = 1.42, CI 1.22–1.67); uninteresting or meaningless schoolwork (OR = 2.44, CI 2.13–2.78); feeling unwell at school (OR = 1.64, CI 1.34–1.85); unstructured school lessons (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.16–1.47); and no praise for achievements (OR = 1.19, CI 1.06–1.34). After adjustment for all covariates, being bullied at school remained associated with higher odds of mental health problems (OR = 2.57; CI 2.24–2.96). Demographic and school-related factors explained 12% and 6% of the variance in mental health problems, respectively (Pseudo R-Square). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors did not alter the variance explained.

Our findings indicate that mental health problems increased among Swedish adolescents between 2014 and 2020, while the prevalence of bullying at school remained stable (< 1% increase), except among girls in year 11, where the prevalence increased by 2.5%. As previously reported [ 5 , 6 ], mental health problems were more common among girls and older adolescents. These findings align with previous studies showing that adolescents who are bullied at school are more likely to experience mental health problems compared to those who are not bullied [ 3 , 4 , 9 ]. This detrimental relationship was observed after adjustment for school-related factors shown to be associated with adolescent mental health [ 10 ].

A novel finding was that boys who had been bullied at school reported a four-times higher prevalence of mental health problems compared to non-bullied boys. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.5 times higher for those who were bullied compared to non-bullied girls, which could indicate that boys are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls. Alternatively, it may indicate that boys are (on average) bullied more frequently or more intensely than girls, leading to worse mental health. Social support could also play a role; adolescent girls often have stronger social networks than boys and could be more inclined to voice concerns about bullying to significant others, who in turn may offer supports which are protective [ 21 ]. Related studies partly confirm this speculative explanation. An Estonian study involving 2048 children and adolescents aged 10–16 years found that, compared to girls, boys who had been bullied were more likely to report severe distress, measured by poor mental health and feelings of hopelessness [ 22 ].

Other studies suggest that heritable traits, such as the tendency to internalize problems and having low self-esteem are associated with being a bully-victim [ 23 ]. Genetics are understood to explain a large proportion of bullying-related behaviors among adolescents. A study from the Netherlands involving 8215 primary school children found that genetics explained approximately 65% of the risk of being a bully-victim [ 24 ]. This proportion was similar for boys and girls. Higher than average body mass index (BMI) is another recognized risk factor [ 25 ]. A recent Australian trial involving 13 schools and 1087 students (mean age = 13 years) targeted adolescents with high-risk personality traits (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) to reduce bullying at school; both as victims and perpetrators [ 26 ]. There was no significant intervention effect for bullying victimization or perpetration in the total sample. In a secondary analysis, compared to the control schools, intervention school students showed greater reductions in victimization, suicidal ideation, and emotional symptoms. These findings potentially support targeting high-risk personality traits in bullying prevention [ 26 ].

The relative stability of bullying at school between 2014 and 2020 suggests that other factors may better explain the increase in mental health problems seen here. Many factors could be contributing to these changes, including the increasingly competitive labour market, higher demands for education, and the rapid expansion of social media [ 19 , 27 , 28 ]. A recent Swedish study involving 29,199 students aged between 11 and 16 years found that the effects of school stress on psychosomatic symptoms have become stronger over time (1993–2017) and have increased more among girls than among boys [ 10 ]. Research is needed examining possible gender differences in perceived school stress and how these differences moderate associations between bullying and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current study include the large participant sample from diverse schools; public and private, theoretical and practical orientations. The survey included items measuring diverse aspects of the school environment; factors previously linked to adolescent mental health but rarely included as covariates in studies of bullying and mental health. Some limitations are also acknowledged. These data are cross-sectional which means that the direction of the associations cannot be determined. Moreover, all the variables measured were self-reported. Previous studies indicate that students tend to under-report bullying and mental health problems [ 29 ]; thus, our results may underestimate the prevalence of these behaviors.

In conclusion, consistent with our stated hypotheses, we observed an increase in self-reported mental health problems among Swedish adolescents, and a detrimental association between bullying at school and mental health problems. Although bullying at school does not appear to be the primary explanation for these changes, bullying was detrimentally associated with mental health after adjustment for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors, confirming our third hypothesis. The finding that boys are potentially more vulnerable than girls to the deleterious effects of bullying should be replicated in future studies, and the mechanisms investigated. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between bullying and mental health, including which factors mediate/moderate this relationship. Epigenetic studies are also required to better understand the complex interaction between environmental and biological risk factors for adolescent mental health [ 24 ].

Availability of data and materials

Data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis; please email the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Olweus D. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(9):751–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L. The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 .

Hagquist C, Due P, Torsheim T, Valimaa R. Cross-country comparisons of trends in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms—a Rasch analysis of HBSC data from four Nordic countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1097-x .

Deighton J, Lereya ST, Casey P, Patalay P, Humphrey N, Wolpert M. Prevalence of mental health problems in schools: poverty and other risk factors among 28 000 adolescents in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(3):565–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.19 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le HTH, Tran N, Campbell MA, Gatton ML, Nguyen HT, Dunne MP. Mental health problems both precede and follow bullying among adolescents and the effects differ by gender: a cross-lagged panel analysis of school-based longitudinal data in Vietnam. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0291-x .

Bayer JK, Mundy L, Stokes I, Hearps S, Allen N, Patton G. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;23(4):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12261 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hysing M, Askeland KG, La Greca AM, Solberg ME, Breivik K, Sivertsen B. Bullying involvement in adolescence: implications for sleep, mental health, and academic outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853409 .

Hogberg B, Strandh M, Hagquist C. Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years—the role of school-related stress. Soc Sci Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890 .

Kidger J, Araya R, Donovan J, Gunnell D. The effect of the school environment on the emotional health of adolescents: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):925–49. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2248 .

Saminathen MG, Låftman SB, Modin B. En fungerande skola för alla: skolmiljön som skyddsfaktor för ungas psykiska välbefinnande. [A functioning school for all: the school environment as a protective factor for young people’s mental well-being]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2020;97(5–6):804–16.

Google Scholar  

Bibou-Nakou I, Tsiantis J, Assimopoulos H, Chatzilambou P, Giannakopoulou D. School factors related to bullying: a qualitative study of early adolescent students. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15(2):125–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1 .

Vukojevic M, Zovko A, Talic I, Tanovic M, Resic B, Vrdoljak I, Splavski B. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. 2017;56(4):742–8. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23 .

Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;90:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026 .

Stockholm City. Stockholmsenkät (The Stockholm Student Survey). 2021. https://start.stockholm/aktuellt/nyheter/2020/09/presstraff-stockholmsenkaten-2020/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Zeebari Z, Lundin A, Dickman PW, Hallgren M. Are changes in alcohol consumption among swedish youth really occurring “in concert”? A new perspective using quantile regression. Alc Alcohol. 2017;52(4):487–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx020 .

Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Social Indicat Res. 2008;86(3):511–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9186-3 .

Hagquist C. Ungas psykiska hälsa i Sverige–komplexa trender och stora kunskapsluckor [Young people’s mental health in Sweden—complex trends and large knowledge gaps]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2013;90(5):671–83.

Wu W, West SG. Detecting misspecification in mean structures for growth curve models: performance of pseudo R(2)s and concordance correlation coefficients. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(3):455–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797829 .

Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J Youth Adolscence. 2007;36(8):984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Mark L, Varnik A, Sisask M. Who suffers most from being involved in bullying-bully, victim, or bully-victim? J Sch Health. 2019;89(2):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12720 .

Tsaousis I. The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;31:186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005 .

Veldkamp SAM, Boomsma DI, de Zeeuw EL, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bartels M, Dolan CV, van Bergen E. Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behav Genet. 2019;49(5):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5 .

Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1187 .

Kelly EV, Newton NC, Stapinski LA, Conrod PJ, Barrett EL, Champion KE, Teesson M. A novel approach to tackling bullying in schools: personality-targeted intervention for adolescent victims and bullies in Australia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.010 .

Gunnell D, Kidger J, Elvidge H. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2608 .

O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23:601–13.

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggr Behav. 2004;30(5):373–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20030 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Department for Social Affairs, Stockholm, for permission to use data from the Stockholm School Survey.

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems (STAD), Center for Addiction Research and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

Håkan Källmén

Epidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance Use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Level 6, Solnavägen 1e, Solna, Sweden

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HK conceived the study and analyzed the data (with input from MH). HK and MH interpreted the data and jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Källmén, H., Hallgren, M. Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 15 , 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Share this article

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

• Mental health
• Adolescents
• School-related factors
• Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people.

• School of Education and Social Care, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom

Bullying research has traditionally been dominated by largescale cohort studies focusing on the personality traits of bullies and victims. These studies focus on bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes. A limitation of this approach is that it does not explain why bullying happens. Qualitative research can help shed light on these factors. This paper discusses the findings from four mainly qualitative research projects including a systematic review and three empirical studies involving young people to various degrees within the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research. Much quantitative research suggests that young people are a homogenous group and through the use of surveys and other large scale methods, generalizations can be drawn about how bullying is understood and how it can be dealt with. Findings from the studies presented in this paper, add to our understanding that young people appear particularly concerned about the role of wider contextual and relational factors in deciding if bullying has happened. These studies underscore the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Moreover, to appreciate the relational and social contexts underpinning bullying behaviors, adults and young people need to work together on bullying agendas and engage with multiple definitions, effects and forms of support. Qualitative methodologies, in particular participatory research opens up the complexities of young lives and enables these insights to come to the fore. Through this approach, effective supports can be designed based on what young people want and need rather than those interpreted as supportive through adult understanding.

Introduction

Research on school bullying has developed rapidly since the 1970s. Originating in social and psychological research in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, this body of research largely focusses on individualized personality traits of perpetrators and victims ( Olweus, 1995 ). Global interest in this phenomenon subsequently spread and bullying research began in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ). Usually quantitative in nature, many studies examine bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes ( Patton et al., 2017 ). Whilst quantitative research collates key demographic information to show variations in bullying behaviors and tendencies, this dominant bullying literature fails to explain why bullying happens. Nor does it attempt to understand the wider social contexts in which bullying occurs. Qualitative research on the other hand, in particular participatory research, can help shed light on these factors by highlighting the complexities of the contextual and relational aspects of bullying and the particular challenges associated with addressing it. Patton et al. (2017) in their systematic review of qualitative methods used in bullying research, found that the use of such methods can enhance academic and practitioner understanding of bullying.

In this paper, I draw on four bullying studies; one systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative research ( O’Brien, 2009 ) and three empirical qualitative studies ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ; O’Brien, 2016 , 2017 ) (see Table 1 below). I discuss how participatory research methodologies, to varying degrees, were used to facilitate bullying knowledge production among teams of young people and adults. Young people in these presented studies were consequently involved in the research process along a continuum of involvement ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ). To the far left of the continuum, young people involved in research are referred to as “active respondents” and their data informs teacher practice. To the middle of the continuum sit “students as co-researchers” who work with teachers to explore an issue which has been identified by that teacher. Finally to the right, sit “students as researchers” who conduct their own research with support from teachers. Moving from left to right of the continuum shows a shift in power dynamics between young people and adults where a partnership develops. Young people are therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspective, that of being a young person now.

Table 1. The studies.

In this paper, I advocate for the active involvement of young people in the research process in order to enhance bullying knowledge. Traditional quantitative studies have a tendency to homogenize young people by suggesting similarity in thinking about what constitutes bullying. However, qualitative studies have demonstrated that regardless of variables, young people understand bullying in different ways so there is a need for further research that starts from these perspectives and focusses on issues that young people deem important. Consequently, participatory research allows for the stories of the collective to emerge without losing the stories of the individual, a task not enabled through quantitative approaches.

What Is Bullying?

Researching school bullying has been problematic and is partly related to the difficulty in defining it ( Espelage, 2018 ). Broadly speaking, bullying is recognized as aggressive, repeated, intentional behavior involving an imbalance of power aimed toward an individual or group of individuals who cannot easily defend themselves ( Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ). In more recent times, “traditional” bullying behaviors have been extended to include cyber-bullying, involving the use of the internet and mobile-phones ( Espelage, 2018 ). Disagreements have been noted in the literature about how bullying is defined by researchers linked to subject discipline and culture. Some researchers for example, disagree about the inclusion or not of repetition in definitions ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ) and these disagreements have had an impact on interpreting findings and prevalence rates. However, evidence further suggests that young people also view bullying in different ways ( Guerin and Hennessy, 2002 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) explored differences between researchers and young people’s definitions of bullying, and found that children’s definitions were usually spontaneous, and did not always encompass the elements of repetition, power imbalance and intent. They concluded, that children need to be provided with a bullying definition so similarities and comparisons can be drawn. In contrast, Huang and Cornell (2015) found no evidence that the inclusion of a definition effected prevalence rates. Their findings, they suggest, indicate that young people use their own perceptions of bullying when answering self-report questionnaires and they are not influenced by an imposed definition.

Nevertheless, differences in children and young people’s bullying definitions are evident in the research literature and have been explained by recourse to age and stage of development ( Smith et al., 2002 ) and their assumed lack of understanding about what constitutes bullying ( Boulton and Flemington, 1996 ). Naylor et al. (2001) for example, found that younger children think similarly in their definitions of bullying, while Smith et al. (2002) found that 8 year olds did not distinguish as clearly between different forms of behavioral aggression as 14 year olds. Methodological limitations associated with understanding bullying have been identified by Forsberg et al. (2018) and Maunder and Crafter (2018) . These authors postulate that quantitative approaches, although providing crucial insights in understanding bullying, are reliant on pre-defined variables, which can shield some of the complexities that qualitative designs can unravel, as individual experiences of bullying are brought to the fore. Indeed, La Fontaine (1991) suggests that unlike standard self-report questionnaires and other quantitative methods used to collect bullying data, analyzing qualitative data such as those collected from a helpline, enables the voice of young people to be heard and consequently empowers adults to understand bullying on their terms rather than relying solely on interpretations and perceptions of adults. Moore and Maclean (2012) collected survey, as well as interview and focus group data, on victimization occurring on the journey to and from school. They found that what young people determined as victimization varied and was influenced by a multifaceted array of circumstances, some of which adults were unaware of. Context for example, played an important role where certain behaviors in one situation could be regarded as victimization while in another they were not. Specific behaviors including ignoring an individual was particularly hurtful and supporting a friend who was the subject of victimization could lead to their own victimization.

Lee (2006) suggests that some bullying research does not reflect individual experiences, and are thus difficult for participants to relate to. Canty et al. (2016) reiterates this and suggests that when researchers provide young people with bullying definitions in which to position their own experiences, this can mask some of the complexities that the research intends to uncover. Such approaches result in an oversight into the socially constructed and individual experiences of bullying ( Eriksen, 2018 ). Griffin and Gross (2004) further argue that when researchers use vague or ambiguous definitions an “overclassification of children as bullies or victims” (p. 381) ensues. Consequently, quantitative research does not consider children as reliable in interpreting their own lived experiences and therefore some of the interactions they consider as bullying, that do not fit within the conventional definitions, are concealed. This approach favors the adult definition of bullying regarding it as “more reliable” than the definitions of children and young people Canty et al. (2016) . The perceived “seriousness” of bullying has also been explored. Overall, young people and adults are more likely to consider direct bullying (face-to-face actions including hitting, threatening and calling names) as “more serious” than indirect bullying (rumor spreading, social exclusion, forcing others to do something they do not want to do) ( Maunder et al., 2010 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2011 ). This perception of “seriousness,” alongside ambiguous definitions of bullying, has further implications for reporting it. Despite the advice given to young people to report incidents of school bullying ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ), the literature suggests that many are reluctant to do so ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ).

Several factors have been highlighted as to why young people are reluctant to report bullying ( Black et al., 2010 ). deLara (2012) , found apprehension in reporting bullying to teachers due to the fear that they will either not do enough or too much and inadvertently make the situation worse, or fear that teachers will not believe young people. Research also shows that young people are reluctant to tell their parents about bullying due to perceived over-reaction and fear that the bullying will be reported to their school ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ). Oliver and Candappa (2007) suggest that young people are more likely to confide in their friends than adults (see also Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, if young people believe they are being bullied, but are unable to recognize their experiences within a predefined definition of bullying, this is likely to impact on their ability to report it.

Research from psychology, sociology, education and other disciplines, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, have enabled the generation of bullying knowledge to date. However, in order to understand why bullying happens and how it is influenced by wider social constructs there is a need for further qualitative studies, which hear directly from children and young people themselves. The next section of this paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, which recognizes that young people are active agents in generating new bullying knowledge alongside adults.

Theoretical Underpinnings – Hearing From Children and Young People

The sociology of childhood ( James, 2007 ; Tisdall and Punch, 2012 ) and children’s rights agenda more broadly ( United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ) have offered new understandings and methods for research which recognize children and young people as active agents and experts on their own lives. From this perspective, research is conducted with rather than on children and young people ( Kellett, 2010 ).

Participatory methodologies have proven particularly useful for involving young people in research as co-researchers (see for example O’Brien and Moules, 2007 ; Stoudt, 2009 ; Kellett, 2010 ; Spears et al., 2016 ). This process of enquiry actively involves those normally being studied in research activities. Previously, “traditional” researchers devalued the experiences of research participants arguing that due to their distance from them, they themselves are better equipped to interpret these experiences ( Beresford, 2006 ). However, Beresford (2006) suggests that the shorter the distance between direct experience and interpretation, the less distorted and inaccurate the resulting knowledge is likely to be. Jones (2004) further advocates that when young people’s voices are absent from research about them the research is incomplete. Certainly Spears et al. (2016) , adopted this approach in their study with the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Australia. Young people played an active role within a multidisciplinary team alongside researchers, practitioners and policymakers to co-create and co-evaluate the learning from four marketing campaigns for youth wellbeing through participatory research. Through this methodological approach, findings show that young people were able to reconceptualize mental health and wellbeing from their own perspectives as well as share their lived experiences with others ( Spears et al., 2016 ). Bland and Atweh (2007) , Ozer and Wright (2012) , highlight the benefits afforded to young people through this process, including participating in dialog with decision-makers and bringing aspects of teaching and learning to their attention.

Against this background, data presented for this paper represents findings from four studies underpinned by the ethos that bullying is socially constructed and is best understood by exploring the context to which it occurs ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). This socially constructed view focusses on the evolving positions within young people’s groups, and argues that within a bullying situation sometimes a young person is the bully, sometimes the victim and sometimes the bystander/witness, which contrasts the traditional view of bullying ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). The focus therefore is on group relationships and dynamics. For that reason, Horton (2011) proposes that if bullying is an extensive problem including many young people, then focusing entirely on personality traits will not generate new bullying knowledge and will be problematic in terms of interventions. It is important to acknowledge that this change in focus and view of bullying and how it is manifested in groups, does not negate the individual experiences of bullying rather the focus shifts to the process of being accepted, or not, by the group ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

The Studies

This section provides a broad overview of the four included studies underpinned by participatory methodologies. Table 1 presents the details of each study. Young people were involved in the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research, along a continuum as identified by Bragg and Fielding (2005) . This ranged from “active respondents” to the left of the continuum, “students as co-researchers” in the middle and “students as researchers” to the right of the continuum. Young people were therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspectives ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ).

A key finding from study one ( O’Brien, 2009 ) was the lack of voice afforded to young people through the research process and can be seen to reflect the far left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum, as young people were not directly involved as “active respondents” but their views were included in secondary data analysis and informed the studies that followed. For example, the quantitative studies used an agreed academic definition of bullying which may or may not have influenced how young participants defined bullying within the studies. On the other hand, the qualitative study involved a group of students in deciding which questions to ask of the research participants and in interpreting the findings.

In contrast, study two ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ) was commissioned and led by a group of young people called PEAR (Public health, Education, Awareness, Researchers), who were established to advise on public health research in England. PEAR members were based in two large English cities and comprised 20 young people aged between 13 and 20 years. The premise of the study was that PEAR members wanted to commission research into cyber bullying and the effects this has on mental health from the perspectives of young people rather than adult perspectives. This project was innovative as young people commissioned the research and participated as researchers ( Davey, 2011 ) and can be seen to reflect the middle “students as co-researchers” as well as moving toward to right “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum. Although the young people did not carry out the day-to-day work on the project, they were responsible for leading and shaping it. More importantly, the research topic and focus were decided with young people and adults together.

Study three ( O’Brien, 2016 ) involved five self-selecting students from an independent day and boarding school who worked with me to answer this question: What do young people in this independent day and boarding school view as the core issue of bullying in the school and how do they want to address this? These students called themselves R4U (Research for You) with the slogan researching for life without fear . Three cycles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) ensued, where decision making about direction of the research, including methods, analysis and dissemination of findings were made by the research team. As current students of the school, R4U had a unique “insider knowledge” that complemented my position as the “academic researcher.” By working together to generate understanding about bullying at the school, the findings thus reflected this diversity in knowledge. As the project evolved so too did the involvement of the young researchers and my knowledge as the “outsider” (see O’Brien et al., 2018a for further details). Similar to study two, this project is situated between the middle: “students as co-researchers” and the right: “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum.

Study four ( O’Brien, 2017 ) was small-scale and involved interviewing four young people who were receiving support from a charity providing therapeutic and educational support to young people who self-exclude from school due to anxiety, as a result of bullying. Self-exclusion, for the purposes of this study, means that a young person has made a decision not to go to school. It is different from “being excluded” or “truanting” because these young people do not feel safe at school and are therefore too anxious to attend. Little is known about the experiences of young people who self-exclude due to bullying and this study helped to unravel some of these issues. This study reflects the left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum where the young people were involved as “active respondents” in informing adult understanding of the issue.

A variety of research methods were used across the four studies including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups (see Table 1 for more details). In studies two and three, young researchers were fundamental in deciding the types of questions to be asked, where they were asked and who we asked. In study three the young researchers conducted their own peer-led interviews. The diversity of methods used across the studies are a strength for this paper. An over-reliance on one method is not portrayed and the methods used reflected the requirements of the individual studies.

Informed Consent

Voluntary positive agreement to participate in research is referred to as “consent” while “assent,” refers to a person’s compliance to participate ( Coyne, 2010 ). The difference in these terms are normally used to distinguish the “legal competency of children over and under 16 years in relation to research.” ( Coyne, 2010 , 228). In England, children have a legal right to consent so therefore assent is non-applicable ( Coyne, 2010 ). However, there are still tensions surrounding the ability of children and young people under the age of 18 years to consent in research which are related to their vulnerability, age and stage of development ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ). The research in the three empirical studies (two, three and four) started from the premise that all young participants were competent to consent to participate and took the approach of Coyne (2010) who argues that parental/carer consent is not always necessary in social research. University Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are nonetheless usually unfamiliar with the theoretical underpinnings that children are viewed as social actors and generally able to consent for themselves ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ; Fox, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2015 ).

In order to ensure the young people in these reported studies were fully informed of the intentions of each project and to adhere to ethical principles, age appropriate participant information sheets were provided to all participants detailing each study’s requirements. Young people were then asked to provide their own consent by signing a consent form, any questions they had about the studies were discussed. Information sheets were made available to parents in studies three and four. In study two, the parents of young people participating in the focus groups were informed of the study through the organizations used to recruit the young people. My full contact details were provided on these sheets so parents/carers could address any queries they had about the project if they wished. When young people participated in the online questionnaire (study two) we did not know who they were so could not provide separate information to parents. Consequently, all participants were given the opportunity to participate in the research without the consent of their parents/carers unless they were deemed incompetent to consent. In this case the onus was on the adult (parent or carer for example) to prove incompetency ( Alderson, 2007 ). Favorable ethical approval, including approval for the above consent procedures, was granted by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University.

In the next section I provide a synthesis of the findings across the four studies before discussing how participatory research with young people can offer new understandings of bullying and its impacts on young people.

Although each study was designed to answer specific bullying research questions, the following key themes cut across all four studies 1 :

• Bullying definitions

◦ Behaviors

• Impact of bullying on victim

• Reporting bullying

Bullying Definitions

Young people had various understandings about what they considered bullying to be. Overall, participants agreed that aggressive direct behaviors, mainly focusing on physical aggression, constituted bullying:

“…if someone is physically hurt then that is bullying straight away.” (Female, study 3).

“I think [cyber-bullying is] not as bad because with verbal or physical, you are more likely to come in contact with your attacker regularly, and that can be disturbing. However, with cyber-bullying it is virtual so you can find ways to avoid the person.” (Female, study 2).

Name-calling was an ambiguous concept, young people generally believed that in isolation name-calling might not be bullying behavior or it could be interpreted as “joking” or “banter”:

“I never really see any, a bit of name calling and taking the mick but nothing ever serious.” (Male, study 3).

The concept of “banter” or “joking” was explored in study three as a result of the participatory design. Young people suggested “banter” involves:

“…a personal joke or group banter has no intention to harm another, it is merely playful jokes.” (Female, study 3).

However, underpinning this understanding of “banter” was the importance of intentionality:

“Banter saying things bad as a joke and everyone knows it is a joke.” (Male, study 3).

“Banter” was thus contentious when perception and reception were ambiguous. In some cases, “banter” was considered “normal behavior”:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke…” (Male, study 3).

The same view was evident in relation to cyber-bullying. Some participants were rather dismissive of this approach suggesting that it did not exist:

“I don’t really think it exists. If you’re being cyber-“bullied” then there is something wrong with you- it is insanely easy to avoid, by blocking people and so on. Perhaps it consists of people insulting you online?” (Male, study 2).

When young people considered additional factors added to name calling such as the type of name-calling, or aspects of repetition or intention, then a different view was apparent.

“…but it has to be constant it can’t be a single time because that always happens.” (Male, study 3).

Likewise with words used on social media, young people considered intentionality in their consideration of whether particular behaviors were bullying, highlighting important nuances in how bullying is conceptualized:

“Some people they don’t want to sound cruel but because maybe if you don’t put a smiley face on it, it might seem cruel when sometimes you don’t mean it.” (Female, study 2).

Study one also found that young people were more likely to discuss sexist or racist bullying in interviews or focus groups but this information was scarce in the questionnaire data. This is possibly as a result of how the questions were framed and the researchers’ perspectives informing the questions.

Evident across the four studies was the understanding young people had about the effects of continuous name-calling on victims:

“…you can take one comment, you can just like almost brush it off, but if you keep on being bullied and bullied and bullied then you might kind of think, hang on a minute, they’ve taken it a step too far, like it’s actually become more personal, whereas just like a cheeky comment between friends it’s become something that’s more serious and more personal and more annoying or hurtful to someone.” (Female, study 3).

“Cyber-bullying is basically still verbal bullying and is definitely psychological bullying. Any bullying is psychological though, really. And any bullying is going to be harmful.” (Female, study 2).

Aspects of indirect bullying (social exclusion) were features of studies one and three. For the most part, the research reviewed in study one found that as young people got older they were less likely to consider characteristics of social exclusion in their definitions of bullying. In study three, when discussing the school’s anti-bullying policy, study participants raised questions about “ isolating a student from a friendship group .” Some contested this statement as a form of bullying:

“…. there is avoiding, as in, not actively playing a role in trying to be friends which I don’t really see as bullying I see this as just not getting someone to join your friendship group. Whereas if you were actually leaving him out and rejecting him if he tries to be friends then I think I would see that as malicious and bullying.” (Male, study 3).

“Isolating a student from a friendship group – I believe there are various reasons for which a student can be isolated from a group – including by choice.” (Female, study 3).

Cyber-bullying was explored in detail in study two but less so in the other three studies. Most study two participants considered that cyber-bullying was just as harmful, or in some cases worse than, ‘traditional’ bullying due to the use of similar forms of “harassment,” “antagonizing,” “tormenting,” and ‘threatening’ through online platforms. Some young people believed that the physical distance between the victim and the bully is an important aspect of cyber-bullying:

“I think it’s worse because people find it easier to abuse someone when not face to face.” (Male, study 2).

“I think it could be worse, because lots of other people can get involved, whereas when it’s physical bullying it’s normally just between one or two or a smaller group, things could escalate too because especially Facebook, they’ve got potential to escalate.” (Female, study 2).

Other participants in study two spoke about bullying at school which transfers to an online platform highlighting no “escape” for some. In addition, it was made clearer that some young people considered distancing in relation to bullying and how this influences perceptions of severity:

“…when there’s an argument it can continue when you’re not at school or whatever and they can continue it over Facebook and everyone can see it then other people get involved.” (Female, study 2).

“I was cyber-bullied on Facebook, because someone put several hurtful comments in response to my status updates and profile pictures. This actually was extended into school by the bully…” (Male, study 2).

Impact of Bullying on Victim

Although bullying behaviors were a primary consideration of young people’s understanding of bullying, many considered the consequences associated with bullying and in particular, the impact on mental health. In these examples, the specifics of the bullying event were irrelevant to young people and the focus was on how the behavior was received by the recipient.

In study two, young people divulged how cyber-bullying had adversely affected their ability to go to school and to socialize outside school. Indeed some young people reported the affects it had on their confidence and self-esteem:

“I developed anorexia nervosa. Although not the single cause of my illness, bullying greatly contributed to my low self-esteem which led to becoming ill.” (Female, study 2).

“It hurts people’s feelings and can even lead to committing suicide….” (Female, study 2).

Across the studies, young people who had been bullied themselves shared their individual experiences:

“….you feel insecure and it just builds up and builds up and then in the end you have no self-confidence.” (Female, study 2).

“…it was an everyday thing I just couldn’t take it and it was causing me a lot of anxiety.” (Male, study 4).

“I am different to everyone in my class …. I couldn’t take it no more I was upset all the time and it made me feel anxious and I wasn’t sleeping but spent all my time in bed being sad and unhappy.” (Male, study 4).

Young people who had not experienced bullying themselves agreed that the impact it had on a person was a large determiner of whether bullying had happened:

“When your self-confidence is severely affected and you become shy. Also when you start believing what the bullies are saying about you and start to doubt yourself.” (Female, study 3).

“…it makes the victim feel bad about themselves which mostly leads to depression and sadness.” (Male, study 2).

Further evidence around the impact of bullying was apparent in the data in terms of how relational aspects can affect perceived severity. In the case of cyber-bullying, young people suggested a sense of detachment because the bullying takes place online. Consequently, as the relational element is removed bullying becomes easier to execute:

“…because people don’t have to face them over a computer so it’s so much easier. It’s so much quicker as well cos on something like Facebook it’s not just you, you can get everyone on Facebook to help you bully that person.” (Female, study 2).

“Due to technology being cheaper, it is easier for young people to bully people in this way because they don’t believe they can be tracked.” (Male, study 2).

“The effects are the same and often the bullying can be worse as the perpetrator is unknown or can disguise their identity. Away from the eyes of teachers etc., more can be done without anyone knowing.” (Female, study 2).

Relational aspects of bullying were further highlighted with regards to how “banter” was understood, particularly with in-group bullying and how the same example can either be seen as “banter” or bullying depending on the nature of the relationship:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke. well, I haven’t done it but I’ve been in a crowd where people do it, so I don’t want to get involved just in case it started an argument.” (Female, study 3).

“But it also depends…who your groups with, for example, if I spoke to my friends from [School]… I wouldn’t like use taboo language with them because to them it may seem inappropriate and probably a bit shocked, but if I was with my friends outside of school we use taboo language, we’ll be ourselves and we’ll be comfortable with it, and if a stranger walked past and heard us obviously they’d be thinking that we’re being bullied ourselves.” (Female, study 3).

Furthermore, how individuals are perceived by others tended to influence whether they were believed or not. In study four for example, participants suggested that who the bullies were within the school might have impacted how complaints were acted upon by school officials:

“When I went to the school about it, the students said I had attacked them – all eight of them! I just realized that no one believes me….” (Female, study 4).

While in study three, a characteristic of bullying was the influence the aggressor has over the victim:

“When the victim starts to feel in danger or start to fear the other person. Consequently he or she tries to avoid the bad guy (or girl!)” (Male, study 3).

These relational and contextual issues also influenced a young person’s ability to report bullying.

Reporting Bullying

Young people were more likely to report bullying when they considered it was ‘serious’ enough. Just under half of participants in study two sought emotional/practical support if they worried about, or were affected by cyber-bullying, with most talking to their parents. In study three, young people were less likely to seek support but when they did, most went to their teachers. In study four, all participants reported bullying in school where they did not feel supported.

Fear of making the bullying worse was captured across the studies as a reason for not reporting it:

“I’m scared that if I tell then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“The bully might bully you if he finds out.” (Male, study 3).

Being able to deal with the incident themselves was also a reason for non-reporting:

“…it’s embarrassing and not necessary, my friends help me through it, adults never seem to understand.” (Female, study 2).

“I don’t tend to talk to anyone about it, I just keep it to myself and obviously that’s the worst thing you should ever do, you should never keep it to yourself, because I regret keeping it to myself to be honest….” (Female, study 3).

“…but I think I’d deal with it myself ‘cos. I was quite insecure but now I’m quite secure with myself, so I’ll sort it out myself. I think it’s just over time I’ve just sort of hardened to it.” (Male, study 3).

Most young people seeking support for bullying said they spoke to an adult but the helpfulness of this support varied. This finding is important for understanding relationships between young people and adults. Those who felt supported by their teachers for example, suggested that they took the time to listen and understood what they were telling them. They also reassured young people who in turn believed that the adult they confided in would know what to do:

“So I think the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she’s a good listener and she can sense when you don’t want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers force it out of you.” (Female, study 3).

“My school has had assemblies about cyber-bullying and ways you can stop it or you can report it anonymously…. you can write your name or you can’t, it’s all up to YOU.” (Male, study 2).

Others however had a negative experience of reporting bullying and a number of reasons were provided as to why. Firstly, young people stated that adults did not believe them which made the bullying worse on some level:

“I went to the teachers a couple of times but, no, I don’t think they could do anything. I did sort of go three times and it still kept on going, so I just had to sort of deal with it and I sort of took it on the cheek….” (Male, study 3).

Secondly, young people suggested that adults did not always listen to their concerns, or in some cases did not take their concerns seriously enough:

“…I had had a really bad day with the girls so I came out and I explained all this to my head of year and how it was affecting me but instead of supporting me he put me straight into isolation.” (Male, study 4).

“I could understand them thinking I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with one incident but this was 18 months of me constantly reporting different incidents.” (Female, study 4).

“If cyber-bullying is brought to our school’s attention, usually, they expect printed proof of the situation and will take it into their own hand depending on its seriousness. However this is usually a couple of detentions. And it’s just not enough.” (Female, study 2).

Finally, some young people suggested that teachers did not always know what to do when bullying concerns were raised and consequently punished those making the complaint:

“I think I would have offered support instead of punishment to someone who was suffering with anxiety. I wouldn’t have seen anxiety as bad behavior I think that’s quite ignorant but they saw it as bad behavior.” (Male, study 4).

It is worth reiterating, that the majority of young people across the studies did not report bullying to anybody , which further underscores the contextual issues underpinning bullying and its role in enabling or disabling bullying behaviors. Some considered it was “pointless” reporting the bullying and others feared the situation would be made worse if they did:

“My school hide and say that bullying doesn’t go on cos they don’t wanna look bad for Ofsted.” (Male, study 2).

“My school is oblivious to anything that happens, many things against school rules happen beneath their eyes but they either refuse to acknowledge it or are just not paying attention so we must suffer.” (Female, study 2).

“That’s why I find that when you get bullied you’re scared of telling because either, in most cases the teacher will – oh yeah, yeah, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out and then they don’t tend to, and then they get bullied more for it.” (Female, study 3).

Young people were concerned that reporting bullying would have a negative impact on their friendship groups. Some were anxious about disrupting the status quo within:

“I think everyone would talk about me behind my back and say I was mean and everyone would hate me.” (Female, study 3).

Others expressed concern about the potential vulnerability they were likely to experience if they raised concerns of bullying:

“I was worried it might affect my other friendships.”(Boy, study 2).

“I’m scared that if I tell, then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“….because they might tell off the bullies and then the bullies will like get back at you.” (Female, study 3).

These findings underscore the importance of contextual and relational factors in understanding bullying from the perspectives of young people and how these factors influence a young person’s ability or willingness to report bullying.

Finally one young person who had self-excluded from school due to severe bullying suggested that schools:

“…need to be looking out for their students’ mental wellbeing – not only be there to teach them but to support and mentor them. Keep them safe really… I missed out on about three years of socializing outside of school because I just couldn’t do it. I think it’s important that students are encouraged to stand up for each other.” (Female, study 4).

The studies presented in this paper illustrate the multitude of perceptions underpinning young people’s understandings of what constitutes bullying, both in terms of the behavior and also the impact that this behavior has on an individual. In turn, the ambiguity of what constitutes bullying had an impact on a young person’s ability to seek support. Discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups are shown, highlighting the fluid and changing roles that occur within a bullying situation. Findings from quantitative studies have demonstrated the differing perceptions of bullying by adults and young people (see for example Smith et al., 2002 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ; Maunder et al., 2010 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ). However, by combining findings from participatory research, new understandings of the relational and contextual factors important to young people come to the fore.

Young people participating in these four studies had unique knowledge and experiences of bullying and the social interactions of other young people in their schools and wider friendship groups. The underpinning participatory design enabled me to work alongside young people to analyze and understand their unique perspectives of bullying in more detail. The research teams were therefore able to construct meaning together, based not entirely on our own assumptions and ideologies, but including the viewpoint of the wider research participant group ( Thomson and Gunter, 2008 ). Together, through the process of co-constructing bullying knowledge, we were able to build on what is already known in this field and contribute to the view that bullying is socially constructed through the experiences of young people and the groups they occupy ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

With regards to understanding what bullying is, the findings from these studies corroborate those of the wider literature from both paradigms of inquiry (for example Naylor et al., 2001 ; Canty et al., 2016 ); that being the discrepancies in definitions between adults and young people and also between young people themselves. Yet, findings here suggest that young people’s bullying definitions are contextually and relationally contingent. With the exception of physical bullying, young people did not differentiate between direct or indirect behaviors, instead they tended to agree that other contextual and relational factors played a role in deciding if particular behaviors were bullying (or not). The participatory research design enabled reflection and further investigation of the ideas that were particularly important to young people such as repetition and intentionality. Repetition was generally seen as being indicative of bullying being “serious,” and therefore more likely to be reported, and without repetition, a level of normality was perceived. This finding contradicts some work on bullying definitions, Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) for example found that regardless of the role played by young people in a bullying episode (victim, aggressor or witness), the criteria of ‘repetition’ was not important in how they defined bullying.

Relational factors underpinning young people’s perception of bullying and indeed it’s “seriousness” were further reflected in their willingness or otherwise to report it. Fear of disrupting the status quo of the wider friendship group, potentially leading to their own exclusion from the group, was raised as a concern by young people. Some were concerned their friends would not support them if they reported bullying, while others feared further retaliation as a result. Friendship groups have been identified as a source of support for those who have experienced bullying and as a protective factor against further bullying ( Allen, 2014 ). Although participants did not suggest their friendship groups are unsupportive it is possible that group dynamics underscore seeking (or not) support for bullying. Other literature has described such practices as evidence of a power imbalance ( Olweus, 1995 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ) but young people in these studies did not describe these unequal relationships in this way and instead focused on the outcomes and impacts of bullying. Indeed Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) also found that young people in their quantitative study did not consider “power imbalance” in their understanding of bullying and were more likely to consider intention. This paper, however, underscores the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Without such nuances, some behaviors may be overlooked as bullying, whereas other more obvious behaviors draw further attention. This paper also shows that contextual issues such as support structures can shift how young people see bullying. Contextual factors were evident across the four studies through the recognition of bullying being enabled or disabled by institutional factors, including a school’s ability to respond appropriately to bullying concerns. Young people suggested that schools could be influenced by bullies, perceiving them as non-threatening and consequently not dealing appropriately with the situation. Indeed some young people reported that their schools placed the onus on them as victims to change, consequently placing the “blame” on victims instead. These findings raise questions about who young people feel able to confide in about bullying as well as issues around training and teacher preparedness to deal with bullying in schools. Evidenced in these four studies, is that young people feel somewhat disconnected from adults when they have bullying concerns. Those who did report bullying, identified particular individuals they trusted and knew would support them. Novick and Isaacs (2010) identified teachers who young people felt comfortable in approaching to report bullying and described them as “most active, engaged and responsive.” (p. 291). The bullying literature suggests that as young people get older they are more likely to confide in friends than adults ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, findings from this paper indicate that although fewer young people reported bullying, those who did confided in an adult. Young people have identified that a variety of supports are required to tackle bullying and that adults need to listen and work with them so nuanced bullying behaviors are not recognized as “normal” behaviors. Within the data presented in this paper, “banter” was portrayed as “normal” behavior. Young people did not specify what behaviors they regarded as “banter,” but suggested that when banter is repeated and intentional the lines are blurred about what is bullying and what is banter.

Exploring bullying nuances in this paper, was enhanced by the involvement of young people in the research process who had a unique “insider” perspective about what it is like to be a young person now and how bullying is currently affecting young people. In studies one and four, young people were “active respondents” ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ) and provided adults with their own unique perspectives on bullying. It could be argued that study one did not involve the participation of young people. However, this study informed the basis of the subsequent studies due to the discrepancies noted in the literature about how bullying is understood between adults and young people, as well as the lack of young people’s voice and opportunity to participate in the reviewed research. Accordingly, young people’s data as “active respondents” informed adult understanding and led to future work involving more active research engagement from other young people. Participation in study four provided an opportunity for young people to contribute to future participatory research based on lived experiences as well as informing policy makers of the effects bullying has on the lives of young people ( O’Brien, 2017 ). In studies two and three, young people were involved further along Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum as “co-researchers” and “students as researchers” with these roles shifting and moving dependent on the context of the project at the time ( O’Brien et al., 2018a ). These young researchers brought unique knowledge to the projects ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ) that could not be accessed elsewhere. Perspectives offered by the young researchers supported adults in understanding more about traditional and cyber-bullying from their perspectives. Furthermore, this knowledge can be added to other, quantitative studies to further understand why bullying happens alongside bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes.

Findings from the four studies offer an alternative perspective to how bullying is understood by young people. Complexities in defining bullying have been further uncovered as understanding is informed by individual factors, as well as wider social and relational contexts ( Horton, 2011 ; Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). This has implications for the type of support young people require. This paper highlights how definitions of bullying shift in response to relational and contextual aspects deemed important to young people. Because of this, further nuances were uncovered through the research process itself as the respective studies showed discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups.

These understandings can act as a starting point for young people and adults to collaborate in research which seeks to understand bullying and the context to which it occurs. Furthermore, such collaborations enable adults to theorize and understand the complexities associated with bullying from the perspective of those at the center. There is a need for additional participatory research projects involving such collaborations where adults and young people can learn from each other as well as combining findings from different methodologies to enable a more comprehensive picture of the issues for young people to emerge. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of bullying among and between young people, specifically in relation to the contextual and relational factors underscoring perceptions of bullying.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was granted for all four studies from the Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care at the Anglia Ruskin University. The research was conducted on the premise of Gillick competency meaning that young people (in these studies over the age of 12 years) could consent for themselves to participate. Parents/carers were aware the study was happening and received information sheets explaining the process.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

These four studies were conducted at the Anglia Ruskin University. Study one was part of a wider masters degree funded by the Anglia Ruskin University, Study two was funded by a group of young people convened by the National Children’s Bureau with funding from the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom). Study three was a wider Doctoral study funded by the Anglia Ruskin University and Study four was also funded by the Anglia Ruskin University.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Grace Spencer, Ruskin Fellow at the Anglia Ruskin University for providing the critical read of this manuscript and offering constructive feedback. I would also like to thank the two independent reviewers for their feedback on the drafts of this manuscript.

• ^ These findings focus on perceptions and data from the young people in the four studies. For a full discussion on adult perceptions please refer to the individual studies.

Alderson, P. (2007). Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2272–2283. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allen, M. (2014). Local Action on Health Inequalities: Building Children and Young People’s Resilience in Schools , London: Public Health England.

Google Scholar

Beresford, P. (2006). Making the connections with direct experience: from the western front to user-controlled research. Educ. Action Res. 14, 161–170.

Black, S., Weinles, D., and Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 8, 138–147. doi: 10.1177/1541204009349401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bland, D., and Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students’ voices in PAR. Educ. Action Res. 15, 337–349. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514259

Boulton, M. J., and Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school Pupils’ involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 17, 331–345. doi: 10.1177/0143034396174003

Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L., and Taylor, J. (2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 215, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038

Bragg, S., and Fielding, M. (2005). “It’s an equal thing. It’s about achieving together: student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality,” in Improving Schools Through Collaborative Enquiry , eds H. Street, and J. Temperley, (London: Continuum), 105–135.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Canty, J., Stubbe, M., Steers, D., and Collings, S. (2016). The trouble with bullying–deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into Children’s use of social media. Child. Soc. 30, 48–58. doi: 10.1111/chso.12103

Coyne, I. (2010). Research with children and young people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Child. Soc. 24, 227–237.

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 27, 1889–1910. doi: 10.1177/0886260511431436

Davey, C. (2011). Evaluation of the PEAR Project. London: National Children’s Bureau.

deLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents Don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. J. Sch. Violence 11, 288–305. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.705931

Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educ. Res. 60, 157–170. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263

Espelage, D. L. (2018). Understanding the complexity of school bully involvement. Chautauqua J. 2:20.

Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., et al. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 33, 127–142. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001

Fox, R. (2013). Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J. Youth Stud. 16, 986–999. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.815698

Griffin, R. S., and Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggr. Violent Behav. 9, 379–400. doi: 10.1016/s1359-1789(03)00033-8

Guerin, S., and Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 17, 249–261. doi: 10.1007/bf03173535

Horton, P. (2011). School bullying and social and moral orders. Child. Soc. 25, 268–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00377.x

Huang, F. L., and Cornell, D. G. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychol. Assess. 27:1484. doi: 10.1037/pas0000149

James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. Am. Anthropol. 109, 261–272. doi: 10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261

Jones, A. (2004). “Involving children and yong people as researchers,” in Doing Research with Children and Young People , eds S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, and C. Robinson, (London: Sage Publications), 113–130.

Kellett, M. (2010). Small shoes, Big Steps! Empowering children as active researchers. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 46, 195–203. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9324-y

La Fontaine, J. (1991). Bullying: The Child’s View – an Analysis of Telephone Calls to ChildLIne about Bullying. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Lambert, V., and Glacken, M. (2011). Engaging with children in research: theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs. Ethics 18, 781–801. doi: 10.1177/0969733011401122

Lee, C. (2006). Exploring teachers’ definitions of bullying. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 11, 61–75. doi: 10.1080/13632750500393342

Maunder, R. E., and Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggr. Violent Behav. 38, 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010

Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., and Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educ. Res. 52, 263–282. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.504062

Moore, S., and Maclean, R. (2012). Victimization, friendship and resilience: crossing the land in-between. Pastor. Care Educ. 30, 147–163. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.679956

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., and del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Rev. 6, 114–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x

Novick, R. M., and Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: the impact of students reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educ. Psychol. 30, 283–296. doi: 10.1080/01443410903573123

O’Brien, N. (2009). Secondary school teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying in the UK: a systematic review. Evid. Policy 5, 399–426.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

O’Brien, N. (2014). “I Didn’t Want to be Known as a Snitch”: Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private day and Boarding School. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition. Suffolk: University Campus Suffolk, 86–96.

O’Brien, N. (2016). To ‘Snitch’ or Not to ‘Snitch’? Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private Day and Boarding School. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700970/ (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N. (2017). An Exploratory Study of Bullied Young People’s Self-Exclusion from School. Evidence: Presented at Meetings of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying 2011-2016. Project Report. All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/702024 (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2007). So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research project with children and young people. Educ. Action Res. J. 15, 385–402. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514382

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2010). The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People’s Mental Health. Project Report. Chelmsford: Anglia Ruskin University.

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2013). Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: findings from a national cyberbullying project. Pastor. Care Educ. 31, 53–65. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.747553

O’Brien, N., Moules, T., and Munn-Giddings, C. (2018a). “Negotiating the research space between young people and adults in a PAR study exploring school bullying,” in Reciprocal Relationships and Well-Being: Implications for Social Work and Social Policy , eds M. Torronen, C. Munn-Giddings, and L. Tarkiainen, (Oxon: Routledge), 160–175. doi: 10.4324/9781315628363-11

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018b). The repercussions of reporting bullying: some experiences of students at an independent secondary school. Pastor. Care Educ. 36, 29–43. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2017.1422004

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018c). The Ethics of Involving Young People Directly in the Research Process. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition , 115–128. Available at: www.uos.ac.uk/content/centre-for-study-children-childhood (accessed May 2018).

Oliver, C., and Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’. Oxford Rev. Educ. 33, 71–86. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094594

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: facts and intervention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 196–200. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640

Ozer, E. J., and Wright, D. (2012). Beyond school spirit: the effects of youth-led participatory action research in two urban high schools. J. Res. Adolesc. 22, 267–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x

Parsons, S., Abbott, C., McKnight, L., and Davies, C. (2015). High risk yet invisible: conflicting narratives on social research involving children and young people, and the role of research ethics committees. Br. Educ. Res. J. 41, 709–729. doi: 10.1002/berj.3160

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., and Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse 18, 3–16. doi: 10.1177/1524838015588502

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Eur. Soc. Res. Council Methods Program. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Schott, R. M., and Sondergaard, D. M. (2014). “Introduction: new approaches to school bullying,” in School Bullying: New Theories in Context , eds R. M. Schott, and D. M. Sondergaard, (Massachusetts, MA: Cambridge University Press), 1–17.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., and Pereira, B. (2011). School bullying by one or more ways: does it matter and how do students cope? Sch. Psychol. Int. 32, 288–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402308

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., and Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Dev. 73, 1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Spears, B., Taddeo, C., Collin, P., Swist, T., Razzell, M., Borbone, V., et al. (2016). Safe and Well Online: Learnings from Four Social Marketing Campaigns for Youth Wellbeing. Available at: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36405/datastream/PDF/view (accessed July 1, 2019).

Stoudt, B. G. (2009). The role of language & discourse in the investigation of privilege: using participatory action research to discuss theory. Dev. Methodol. Interrupt. Power Urban Rev. 41, 7–28.

Thomson, P., and Gunter, H. (2008). Researching Bullying with students: a lens on everyday life in an ‘innovative school’. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 12, 185–200. doi: 10.1080/13603110600855713

Tisdall, E. K. M., and Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Child. Geogr. 10, 249–264. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2012.693376

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Available at: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PRESS2009 10web.pdf (accessed January 19, 2014).

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008). Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32, 486–495. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095553

Keywords : bullying, young people, participatory research, social constructionism, young people as researchers, collaboration, bullying supports

Citation: O’Brien N (2019) Understanding Alternative Bullying Perspectives Through Research Engagement With Young People. Front. Psychol. 10:1984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984

Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 13 August 2019; Published: 28 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 O’Brien. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Niamh O’Brien, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

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.

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.

Q Methodology as an Innovative Addition to Bullying Researchers’ Methodological Repertoire

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 11 May 2022
• Volume 4 , pages 209–219, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Adrian Lundberg   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8555-6398 1 &
• Lisa Hellström   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9326-1175 1  

5487 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A Correction to this article was published on 18 July 2022

This article has been updated

The field of bullying research deals with methodological issues and concerns affecting the comprehension of bullying and how it should be defined. For the purpose of designing relevant and powerful bullying prevention strategies, this article argues that instead of pursuing a universal definition of what constitutes bullying, it may be of greater importance to investigate culturally and contextually bound understandings and definitions of bullying. Inherent to that shift is the transition to a more qualitative research approach in the field and a stronger focus on participants’ subjective views and voices. Challenges in qualitative methods are closely connected to individual barriers of hard-to-reach populations and the lack of a necessary willingness to share on the one hand and the required ability to share subjective viewpoints on the other hand. By reviewing and discussing Q methodology, this paper contributes to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire of less-intrusive methodologies. Q methodology offers an approach whereby cultural contexts and local definitions of bullying can be put in the front. Furthermore, developmentally appropriate intervention and prevention programs might be created based on exploratory Q research and could later be validated through large-scale investigations. Generally, research results based on Q methodology are expected to be useful for educators and policymakers aiming to create a safe learning environment for all children. With regard to contemporary bullying researchers, Q methodology may open up novel possibilities through its status as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches.

Similar content being viewed by others

Using Qualitative Methods to Measure and Understand Key Features of Adolescent Bullying: A Call to Action

Natalie Spadafora, Anthony A. Volk & Andrew V. Dane

The Importance of Being Attentive to Social Processes in School Bullying Research: Adopting a Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach

Camilla Forsberg

Problems and Coping Strategies in Conducting Comparative Research in School Bullying Between China and Norway

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Bullying, internationally recognized as a problematic and aggressive form of behavior, has negative effects, not only for those directly involved but for anybody and in particular children in the surrounding environment (Modin, 2012 ). However, one of the major concerns among researchers in the field of bullying is the type of research methods employed in the studies on bullying behavior in schools. The appropriateness of using quantitative or qualitative research methods rests on the assumption of the researcher and the nature of the phenomena under investigation (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ). There is a need for adults to widen their understanding and maintain a focus on children’s behaviors to be able to provide assistance and support in reducing the amount of stress and anxiety resulting from online and offline victimization (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ). A crucial step for widening this understanding is an increased visibility of children’s own viewpoints. When the voices of children, particularly those of victims and perpetrators, but also those of bystanders are heard in these matters, effective support can be designed based specifically on what children want and need rather than what adults interpret and understand to be supporting the child (O’Brien, 2019 ). However, bullying victims and their perpetrators are hard-to-reach populations (Shaghaghi et al., 2011 ; Sydor, 2013 ) for a range of reasons. To name but a few, researchers perennially face difficulties regarding potential participants’ self-identification, the sensitivity of bullying topics, or the power imbalance between them and their young respondents. Furthermore, limited verbal literacy and/or a lack of cognitive ability of some respondents due to age or disability contribute to common methodological issues in the field. Nevertheless, and despite ethical restrictions around the immediate questioning of younger children or children with disabilities that prohibit researchers to perform the assessments with them directly, it would be ethically indefensible to not study a sensitive topic like bullying among vulnerable groups of children. Hence, the research community is responsible for developing valid and reliable methods to explore bullying among different groups of children, where the children’s own voices are heard and taken into account (Hellström, 2019 ). Consequently, this paper aims to contribute to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire with an additional less-intrusive methodology, particularly suitable for research with hard-to-reach populations.

Historically, the field of bullying and cyberbullying has been dominated by quantitative research approaches, most often with the aim to examine prevalence rates. However, recent research has seen an increase in the use of more qualitative and multiple data collection approaches on how children and youth explain actions and reactions in bullying situations (e.g., Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). This may be translated into a need to more clearly understand the phenomenon in different contexts. As acknowledged by many researchers, bullying is considerably influenced by the context in which it occurs and the field is benefitting from studying the phenomenon in the setting where all the contextual variables are operating (see, e.g., Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Scheithauer et al., 2016 ; Torrance, 2000 ). Cultural differences in attitudes regarding violence as well as perceptions, attitudes, and values regarding bullying are likely to exist and have an impact when bullying is being studied. For this reason, listening to the voices of children and adolescents when investigating the nature of bullying in different cultures is essential (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Scheithauer et al., 2016 ).

In addition to studying outcomes or products, bullying research has also emphasized the importance of studying processes (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ). Here, the use of qualitative methods allows scholars to not only explore perceptions and understandings of bullying and its characteristics, but also interpret bullying in light of a specific social context, presented from a specific internal point of view. In other words, qualitative approaches may offer methods to understand how people make sense of their experiences of the bullying phenomenon. The processes implemented by a qualitative approach allow researchers to build hypotheses and theories in an inductive way (Atieno, 2009 ). Thus, a qualitative approach can enrich quantitative knowledge of the bullying phenomenon, paying attention to the significance that individuals attribute to situations and their own experiences. It can allow the research and clinical community to better project and implement bullying assessment and prevention programs (Hutson, 2018 ).

Instead of placing qualitative and quantitative approaches in opposition, they can both be useful and complementary, depending on the purpose of the research (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ). In their review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school, Hong and Espelage ( 2012 ) underlined that instead of using single methods, mixed methods have the advantage of generating a deeper and more complex understanding of the phenomenon. By combining objective data with information about the personal context within which the phenomenon occurs, mixed methods can generate new insights and new perspectives to the research field (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Kulig et al., 2008 ; Pellegrini & Long, 2002 ). However, Hong and Espelage ( 2012 ) also argued that mixed methods can lead to divergence and contradictions in findings that may serve as a challenge to researchers. For example, Cowie and Olafsson ( 2000 ) examined the impact of a peer support program to reduce bullying using both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. While a quantitative approach collecting pre-test and post-test data showed no effects in decreasing bullying, interviews with peer supporters, students, and potential users of the intervention revealed the strength of the program and its positive impact, in light of students and peer supporters. Thus, rather than rejecting the program, the divergence in findings leads to a new rationale for modifying the program and addressing its limits.

Understandably, no single data collection approach is complete but deals with methodological issues and concerns affecting the research field and the comprehension of bullying. To provide a robust foundation for the introduction of an additional methodological perspective in bullying research, common data collection methods and methodological issues are outlined below.

Methodological Issues in Bullying Research

Large-scale cohort studies generating statistical findings often use R-statistics, descriptive analyses, averages, and correlations to estimate and compare prevalence rates of bullying, to explore personality traits of bullies and victims, and the main correlates and predictors of the phenomenon. Nevertheless, large-scale surveys have a harder time examining why bullying happens (O’Brian, 2019 ) and usually do not give voice to study objects’ own unique understanding and experiences (Acquadro Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Bosacki et al., 2006 ; Woodhead & Faulkner, 2008 ). Other concerns using large-scale surveys include whether a definition is used or the term bullying is operationalized, which components are included in the definition, what cut-off points for determining involvement are being used, the lack of reliability information, and the absence of validity studies (Swearer et al., 2010 ).

Other issues include the validity in cross-cultural comparisons using large-scale surveys. For example, prevalence rates across Europe are often established using standard questionnaires that have been translated into appropriate languages. Comparing four large-scale surveys, Smith et al. ( 2016 ) found that when prevalence rates by country are compared across surveys, there are some obvious discrepancies, which suggest a need to examine systematically how these surveys compare in measuring cross-national differences. Low external validity rates between these studies raise concerns about using these cross-national data sets to make judgments about which countries are higher or lower in victim rates. The varying definitions and words used in bullying research may make it difficult to compare findings from studies conducted in different countries and cultures (Griffin & Gross, 2004 ). However, some argue that the problem seems to be more about inconsistency in the type of assessments (e.g., self-report, nominations) used to measure bullying rather than the varying definition of bullying (Jia & Mikami, 2018 ). When using a single-item approach (e.g., “How often have you been bullied?”) it is not possible to investigate the equivalency of the constructs between countries, which is a crucial precondition for any statistically valid comparison between them (Scheithauer et al., 2016 ). Smith et al. ( 2016 ) conclude that revising definitions and how bullying is translated and expressed in different languages and contexts would help examine comparability between countries.

Interviews, focus groups and the use of vignettes (usually with younger children) can all be regarded as suitable when examining youths’ perceptions of the bullying phenomenon (Creswell, 2013 ; Hellström et al., 2015 ; Hutson, 2018 ). They all allow an exploration of the bullying phenomenon within a social context taking into consideration the voices of children and might solve some of the methodological concerns linked to large-scale surveys. However, these data collection methods are also challenged by individual barriers of hard-to-reach populations (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015 ) and may include the lack of a necessary willingness to share on the one hand and the required ability to share subjective viewpoints on the other hand.

Willingness to Share

In contrast to large-scale surveys requiring large samples of respondents with reasonable literacy skills, interviews, which may rely even heavier on students’ verbal skills, are less plentiful in bullying research. This might at least partially be based on a noteworthy expectation of respondents to be willing to share something. It must be remembered that asking students to express their own or others’ experiences of emotionally charged situations, for example concerning bullying, is particularly challenging (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ) and can be perceived as intrusive by respondents who have not had the opportunity to build a rapport with the researchers. This constitutes a reason why research in this important area is difficult and complex to design and perform. Ethnographic studies may be considered less intrusive, as observations offer a data collection technique where respondents are not asked to share any verbal information or personal experiences. However, ethnographical studies are often challenging due to the amount of time, resources, and competence that are required by the researchers involved (Queirós et al., 2017 ). In addition, ethnographical studies are often used for other purposes than asking participants to share their views on certain topics.

Vulnerable populations often try to avoid participating in research about a sensitive topic that is related to their vulnerable status, as recalling and retelling painful experiences might be distressing. The stigma surrounding bullying may affect children’s willingness to share their personal experiences in direct approaches using the word bullying (Greif & Furlong, 2006 ). For this reason, a single-item approach, in which no definition of bullying is provided, allows researchers to ask follow-up questions about perceptions and contexts and enables participants to enrich the discussion by adjusting their answers based on the suggestions and opinions of others (Jacobs et al., 2015 ). Generally, data collection methods with depersonalization and distancing effects have proven effective in research studying sensitive issues such as abuse, trauma, stigma and so on (e.g., Cromer & Freyd, 2009 ; Hughes & Huby, 2002 ). An interesting point raised by Jacobs and colleagues ( 2015 ) is that a direct approach that asks adolescents if they have ever experienced cyberbullying may lead to a poorer discussion and an underestimation of the phenomenon. This is because perceptions and contexts often differ between persons and because adolescents do not perceive all behaviors as cyberbullying. The same can be true for bullying taking place offline (Hellström et al., 2015 ).

When planning research with children, it is important to consider the immediate research context as it might affect what children will talk about (Barker & Weller, 2003 ; Hill, 2006 ; Punch, 2002 ). In addition to more material aspects, such as the room or medium for a dialog, the potential power imbalance created in an interview situation between an adult researcher and the child under study adds to a potentially limited willingness to share. Sitting in front of an adult interviewer may create situations where children may find it difficult to express their feelings and responses may be given based on perceived expectations (Punch, 2002 ). This effect is expected to be even stronger when studying a sensitive topic like bullying. Therefore, respondents may provide more honest responses when they are unaware that the construct of bullying is being assessed (Swearer et al., 2010 ). Moreover, in research about sensitive topics, building a strong connection with participants (Lyon & Carabelli, 2016 ), characterized by mutual trust, is vital and might overcome the initial hesitation to participate and share personal accounts. Graphic vignettes have successfully been used as such unique communication bridges to collect detailed accounts of bullying experiences (Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ). However, some reluctance to engage has been reported even in art-based methods, usually known to be effective in research with verbally limited participants (Bagnoli, 2009 ; Vacchelli, 2018 ) or otherwise hard-to-reach populations (Goopy & Kassan, 2019 ). Most commonly, participants might not see themselves as creative or artistic enough (Scherer, 2016 ). In sum, the overarching challenging aspect of art-based methods related to a limited willingness to share personal information is an often-required production of some kind.

Ability to Share

Interviews as a data collection method demand adequate verbal literacy skills for participants to take part and to make their voices heard. This may be challenging especially for younger children or children with different types of disabilities. There is a wide research gap in exploring the voices of younger children (de Leeuw et al., 2020 ) and children with disabilities (Hellström, 2019 ) in bullying research. Students’ conceptualization of bullying behavior changes with age, as there are suggestions that younger students tend to focus more on physical forms of bullying (such as fighting), while older students include a wider variety of behaviors in their view of bullying, such as verbal aggression and social exclusion (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Monks & Smith, 2006 ; Smith et al., 2002 ; Hellström et al., 2015 ). This suggests that cognitive development may allow older students to conceptualize bullying along a number of dimensions (Monks & Smith, 2006 ). Furthermore, the exclusion of the voices of children with disabilities in bullying research is debated. It is discussed that the symptoms and characteristics of disabilities such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), i.e., difficulties understanding the thoughts, emotions, reactions, and behaviors of others, which makes them the ideal target for bullying may also make it hard for them to perceive, verbalize and report bullying and victimization in a reliable and valid manner (Slaughter et al., 2002 ). It may also be difficult for children with ASD to differentiate between playful teasing among friends and hurtful teasing. While many argue that children with ASD are unreliable respondents of victimization, under-reporting using parental and teacher reports has been shown in research on bullying (Waters et al., 2003 ; Bradshaw et al., 2007 ) and child maltreatment (Compier-de Block et al., 2017 ).

This Paper’s Contribution

The present paper contributes to this special issue about qualitative school bullying and cyberbullying research by reviewing and discussing Q methodology as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches in the field. Despite the fact that Q methodology had been proclaimed as “especially valuable […] in educational psychology” (Stephenson, 1935 , p. 297) nearly 90 years ago, the approach has only relatively recently been described as an up-and-coming methodological choice of educational researchers interested in participants’ subjective views (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). Even though, Q enables researchers to investigate and uncover first-person accounts, characterized by a high level of qualitative detail in its narrative description, only few educational studies have applied Q methodology to investigate the subject of bullying (see Camodeca & Coppola, 2016 ; Ey & Spears, 2020 ; Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ; Wester & Trepal, 2004 ). Within the wider field of bullying, Q methodology has also been used to investigate workplace bullying in hospitals (Benmore et al., 2018 ) and nursing units (Choi & Lee, 2019 ). By responding to common methodological issues outlined earlier, the potential Q methodology might have for bullying research is exemplified. A particular focus is thereby put on capturing respondents’ subjective viewpoints through its less-intrusive data collection technique. The present paper closes by discussing implications for practice and suggesting future directions for Q methodological bullying and cyberbullying research, in particular with hard-to-reach populations.

An Introduction to Q Methodology

Q as a methodology represents a larger conceptual and philosophical framework, which is by no means novel. However, the methodology has largely been marginalized since its invention in the 1930s by William Stephenson (Brown, 2006 ). As a research technique, it broadly consists of three stages that each can be split into a set of steps (see Fig.  1 ); (1) carefully constructing a data collection instrument, (2) collecting data, and (3) analyzing and interpreting data. The central, and therefore also best-known feature of Q methodology is Q sorting to collect data in the form of individual Q sorts. Participants thereby rank order a sample of self-referent stimuli along a continuum and in accordance with a central condition of instruction; for example, children might be asked to what extent particular scenarios describe bullying situations (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ) or they might be instructed to sort illustrated ways to resolve social exclusion according to the single face-valid dimension of “least preferred to most preferred” (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ). As soon as all items are placed on a most often bell-shaped distribution grid (see Fig.  2 ), participants might be asked to elaborate on their item placement to add a further layer of qualitative data. Such so-called post-sorting activities might include written annotations of items placed at the ends of the continuum or form the structure for interviews (Shemmings & Ellingsen, 2012 ).

Three stages and six steps of a Q methodological research process (adapted from Lundberg et al., 2020 )

A vertical distribution grid with two examples of face-valid dimensions. This rather small distribution is designed for a 16-item Q sample and therefore contains 16 slots to be filled

For participants to provide their subjective viewpoint toward a specific topic in the form of a Q sort, researchers need to construct the data collection instrument, called Q sample. Such a set of stimulus items is a representative sample from all possible items concerning the topic, which in the technical language in Q methodology is called concourse (Brown, 1980 ). The development of such a concourse about the topic at hand might stem from a wide range of sources, including academic literature, policy documents, informal discussions, or media (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). Moreover, in a participatory research fashion, participants’ statements can be used verbatim to populate the concourse. This way, children’s own words and voices are part of the data collection instrument. A sophisticated structuring process then guides the researchers in selecting a Q sample from all initial statements in the concourse (Brown et al., 2019 ). In Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), a literature review on findings and definitions of bullying, stemming from qualitative and quantitative research, provided the initial concourse. A matrix consisting of different modes, types, and contexts of bullying supported the construction of the final Q sample.

As a student and assistant of Charles Spearman, Q’s inventor Stephenson was well-informed about R-methodological factor analysis based on correlating traits. The British physicist-psychologist however inverted the procedure and thereby suggested correlating persons to study human behavior (Stephenson, 1935 , 1953 ). A detailed description of the statistical procedure of Q factor analysis is outside the scope of this article, especially as the focus of this special issue is put on qualitative research methods. In addition, with its focus on producing quantifiable data from highly subjective viewpoints (Duncan & Owens, 2011 ), it is safe to say that Q methodology is more often treated as a qualitative methodology with quantitative features than the other way around. Nevertheless, it is important to note that through factor analysis, individual viewpoints are clustered into so-called factors, representing shared viewpoints if they sufficiently correlate (see Fig.  3 ). In that sense, no outside criterion is applied to respondents’ subjective views and groups of similar sorts (factors/viewpoints) are not logically constructed by researchers. Instead, they inductively emerge through quantitative analysis, which helps “in learning how the subject, not the observer, understands and reacts to items” (Brown, 1980 , p. 191). This procedure allowed Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ) to describe two age-related definitions of bullying. Older students in particular perceived offline bullying as more severe than online bullying and their younger peers were mostly concerned about bullying situations taking place in a private setting.

A simplified illustration of Q factor analysis (step 5). Arrow A represents the statistical correlation of all collected individual viewpoints. Arrow B represents inverted factor analysis as the data condensation technique resulting in a manageable number of shared viewpoints

Despite its quantitative analysis, participant selection in Q methodology is largely in line with purposive sampling with small numbers. It, therefore, represents a major difference to R methodological research, where larger opportunity samples are desired. In Q methodology, participants are selected strategically in line with those who might likely “express a particularly interesting or pivotal point of view” (Watts & Stenner, 2012 , p. 71). Investigating a large number of similar respondents might therefore simply lead to more participants correlating with the same shared viewpoint and not necessarily add new viewpoints. In recent educational Q research, the average number of participants is 37 (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). Many studies have however been successfully conducted with considerably fewer, as for example illustrated by Benmore et al. ( 2018 ), who described three distinctive groups within their sample of 12 participants.

To illustrate Q methodology in bullying research, our small scale and exploratory study published in Educational Research (Hellström & Lundberg, 2020 ) serves as a practical example. The purpose of that study was to investigate definitions of bullying from young people’s perspectives and was guided by the following research question: What are students’ subjective viewpoints on bullying behavior? . In Table 1 , we describe the methodological steps introduced in Fig.  1 .

Q Methodology’s Response to the Methodological Issues Outlined Above

Above, methodological issues have been structured according to participants’ willingness and ability to share their subjective viewpoints and lived experiences. In order to respond to those, the present section focuses on Q methodology’s built-in features. A particularly important component is Q sorting as the central data collection technique that facilitates participants’ communicability of their subjectivity.

Engaging participants in a card sorting activity encourages students to express their viewpoints and thereby making their voices heard in a less-intrusive way, despite being cognitively engaging. Because they are asked to rank-order a predetermined sample of items, ideally in accordance with a carefully selected condition of instruction, they do not need to report or disclose their own personal experiences and are not obliged to actively create anything, as criticized in arts-based research. In that sense, Q methodology can be seen as a method to collect sensitive data in a more depersonalized way. This provides the basis to find a vital “balance between protecting the child and at the same time allowing access to important information” (Thorsen & Størksen, 2010 , p. 9), which is of particular importance for research about emotionally charged situations or sensitive topics as it is often the case with bullying (Ellingsen et al., 2014 ). Sharing their view through a fixed collection of items certainly makes participation in research for young children or otherwise hard-to-reach respondents less intimidating and results can be expected to be more truthful.

In comparison to researchers applying ethnographical approaches, who immerse themselves into the studied context to understand and document patterns of social behavior and interaction in a less intrusive way, Q methodologists are not expected to observe their participants. Even though the purpose of these approaches is different, being part of the culture under investigation or at least involving community partners in Q methodological research can still be useful for at least two reasons. As mentioned in Table 1 featuring the study by Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), the pupils’ physical education and health teacher guided an exploratory and informal discussion and thereby provided valuable insights into the participants’ lifeworld that informed the Q sample. In addition to better tailoring the sample to the participants and making them feel seen and heard, the community partner could help build a positive rapport between participants and researchers, which otherwise requires much work. During the actual data collection exercise, participants were already familiar with the topic, well-informed about the research project, and perceived the sorting activity as an integral part of their lesson.

The play-like character of Q sorting has as well been reported as a positive influence on respondents’ motivation to participate (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ) and Wright ( 2013 ) mentions the engaging atmosphere created between the sorter and the researcher. The combination of these features allows assuming that obtaining participants’ viewpoint through Q methodology is less threatening than for example sitting in front of an interviewer and providing on-spot oral responses about a sensitive topic.

Q sorting as a data collection instrument represents a major advantage for Q methodological research with participants that do not (yet) possess sufficient verbal literacy and/or cognitive ability to process receptive or expressive language. To illustrate, two features are outlined here: first the flexibility of the Q sample, say the set of stimuli and second the fact that primary data collection in Q methodology is based on a silent activity.

Written statements are undoubtedly the most common type of items used in Q methodology and the number of such in a Q sample greatly varies. In recent research reporting from compulsory education settings, the average Q sample consists of about 40 items (Lundberg et al., 2020 ). In addition to applying a smaller set of items, their complexity can easily be adapted in line with participants’ receptive literacy skills and their developmental stage to facilitate understanding. Statements can for example be shortened or they can start identically to make the activity less taxing (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). A different approach to cater to limited verbal literacy is the use of images instead of written statements. Constructing a visual Q sample might be more challenging for the researcher, in particular, if images are carefully selected and culturally tailored, meaning that they are clear, appealing and without too many details (Thorsen & Størksen, 2010 ). It might nevertheless be worth it, as such items provide a powerful tool to elicit viewpoints from otherwise marginalized or hard-to-reach research participants. Combes and colleagues ( 2004 ) for example, created a 37-item-Q sample with intellectually disabled participants’ own pictures to evaluate the planning of activities and de Leeuw et al. ( 2019 ) have used 15 images of hypothetical scenarios of social exclusion in a study with primary school pupils. Furthermore, as illustrated by Allgood and Svennungsen ( 2008 ) who photographed their participant’s own sculptures, Q samples consisting of objects (e.g., toys) or symbols (emojis) might be other options to investigate issues about bullying and cyberbullying without using text.

In addition to adaptations to the data collection instrument, the sorting process is usually carefully introduced and illustrated. Researchers might want to go through the entire Q sample to ensure the participants are able to discriminate each item (Combes et al., 2004 ). Even with adult participants without any cognitive impairments, it is suggested to pre-sort items into three provisional categories (Watts & Stenner, 2012 ). Two categories represent the respective ends of the continuum in the distribution grid and might be labeled and. Any items the sorter feels insecure or neutral about, are moved to the third category, which receives a question mark (?) for the sake of this exercise. During the actual rank-ordering process, the participants start to allocate items to one of the ends of the continuum (the top of the distribution grid in Fig.  2 ) with cards from the ☺ category and work themselves toward the center of the distribution grid. The process continues with items in the ☹ category, which are placed from the opposite end of the continuum toward the center. Any free spots are then filled with the remaining items in the (?) category. The graphic display of their viewpoint has been experienced as enabling for self-reflection (Combes et al., 2004 ) and might be utilized for a further discussion about the topic, for example as part of teacher workshops (Ey & Spears, 2020 ).

Meeting children at an appropriate cognitive level through adaptations of the data collection instrument and procedure, is not only a promising and important ethical decision in order to show young participants the respect they deserve (Thorsen & Størsken, 2010 ), but makes the sorting procedure a pleasant experience for the participants (John et al., 2014 ). Unsurprisingly, Q methodology has been described as a respectful, person-centered, and therefore child-friendly approach (Hughes, 2016 ).

Limitations

Despite its potential for bullying research, Q methodology has its limitations. The approach is still relatively unknown in the field of bullying research and academic editors’ and reviewers’ limited familiarity with it can make publishing Q methodological research challenging. Notwithstanding the limitation of not being based on a worked example, the contribution of the present paper hopefully fulfills some of the needed spadework toward greater acceptability within and beyond a field, which has only seen a limited number of Q methodological research studies. Because the careful construction of a well-balanced Q sample is time-consuming and prevents spontaneous research activities, a core set of items could be created to shorten the research process and support the investigation of what bullying means to particular groups of people. Such a Q sample would then have to be culturally tailored to fit local characteristics. Finally, the present paper is limited in our non-comprehensive selection of data collection methods as points of comparison when arguing for a more intensive focus on Q methodology for bullying research.

Future Research Directions

The results of Q methodological studies based on culturally tailored core Q samples would allow the emergence of local definitions connected to the needs of the immediate society or school context. As illustrated by Hellström & Lundberg ( 2020 ), even within the same school context, and with the same data collection instrument (Q sample), Q methodology yielded different, age-related definitions of bullying. Or in Wester and Trepal ( 2004 ), Q methodological analysis revealed more perceptions and opinions about bullying than researchers usually mention. Hence, Q methodology offers a robust and strategic approach that can foreground cultural contexts and local definitions of bullying. If desired, exploratory small-scale Q research might later be validated through large-scale investigations. A further direction for future research in the field of bullying research is connected to the great potential of visual Q samples to further minimize research participation restrictions for respondents with limited verbal or cognitive abilities.

Implications for Practice

When designing future bullying prevention strategies, Q methodology presents a range of benefits to take into consideration. The approach offers a robust way to collect viewpoints about bullying without asking participants to report their own experiences. The highly flexible sorting activity further represents a method to investigate bullying among groups that are underrepresented in bullying research, such as preschool children (Camodeca & Coppola, 2016 ). This is of great importance, as tackling bullying at an early age can prevent its escalation (Alsaker & Valkanover, 2001 ; Storey & Slaby, 2013 ). Making the voices of the hard-to-reach heard in an unrestricted way and doing research with them instead of about them (de Leeuw et al., 2019 ; Goopy & Kassan, 2019 ) is expected to enable them to be part of discussions about their own well-being. By incorporating social media platforms, computer games, or other contextually important activities when designing a Q sample, the sorting of statements in Hellström & Lundberg, ( 2020 ) turned into a highly relevant activity, clearly connected to the reality of the students. As a consequence, resulting policy creation processes based on such exploratory studies should lead to more effective interventions and bullying prevention programs confirming the conclusion by Ey and Spears ( 2020 ) that Q methodology served as a great model to develop and implement context-specific programs. Due to the enhanced accountability and involvement of children’s own voices, we foresee a considerable increase in implementation and success rates of such programs. Moreover, Q methodology has been suggested as an effective technique to evaluate expensive anti-bullying interventions (Benmore et al., 2018 ). Generally, research results based on exploratory Q methodology that quantitatively condensates rich data and makes commonalities and diversities among participants emerge through inverted factor analysis are expected to be useful for educators and policymakers aiming to create a safe learning environment for all children. At the same time, Q methodology does not only provide an excellent ground for participatory research, but is also highly cost-efficient due to its status as a small-sample approach. This might be particularly attractive, when neither time nor resources for other less-intrusive methodological approaches, such as for example ethnography, are available. Due to its highly engaging aspect and great potential for critical personal reflection, Q sorting might be applied in classes regardless of representing a part of a research study or simply as a learning tool (Duncan & Owens, 2011 ). Emerging discussions are expected to facilitate and mediate crucial dialogs and lead toward collective problem-solving among children.

The use of many different terminologies and different cultural understandings, including meaning, comprehension, and operationalization, indicates that bullying is a concept that is difficult to define and subject to cultural influences. For the purpose of designing relevant and powerful bullying prevention strategies, this paper argues that instead of pursuing a universal definition of what constitutes bullying, it may be of greater importance to investigate culturally and contextually bound understandings and definitions of bullying. Although the quest for cultural and contextual bound definitions is not new in bullying research, this paper offers an additional method, Q methodology, to capture participants’ subjective views and voices. Since particularly the marginalized and vulnerable participants, for example, bullying victims, are usually hard to reach, bullying researchers might benefit from a methodological repertoire enriched with a robust approach that is consistent with changes in methodological and epistemological thinking in the field. In this paper, we have argued that built-in features of Q methodology respond to perennial challenges in bullying research connected to a lack of willingness and limited ability to share among participants as well as studying bullying as a culturally sensitive topic. In summary, we showcased how Q methodology allows a thorough and less-intrusive investigation of what children perceive to be bullying and believe that Q methodology may open up novel possibilities for contemporary bullying researchers through its status as an innovative addition to more mainstream approaches.

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Change history, 18 july 2022.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00135-9

Acquadro Maran, D., & Begotti, T. (2021). Measurement ideas relevant to qualitative studies. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Editors). Handbook of bullying (no pages assigned yet). John Wiley & Sons Limited.

Allgood, E., & Svennungsen, H. O. (2008). Toward an articulation of trauma using the creative arts and Q-methodology: A single-case study. Journal of Human Subjectivity, 6 (1), 5–24.

Google Scholar  

Alsaker, F. D., & Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 175–195). Guilford Press.

Atieno, O. P. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms.  Problems of Education in the 21st Century ,  13 (1), 13–38.

Bagnoli, A. (2009). Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research, 9 (5), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343625

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, J., & Weller, S. (2003). “Is it fun?” Developing children centred research methods. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 23 (1/2), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790435

Benmore, G., Henderson, S., Mountfield, J., & Wink, B. (2018). The Stopit! programme to reduce bullying and undermining behaviour in hospitals: Contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 32 (3), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-02-2018-0047

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bosacki, S. L., Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Pictorial and narrative representations of children’s bullying experiences. Journal of Moral Education, 35 , 231–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240600681769

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36 , 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087929

Brown, S. (1980). Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science . Yale University Press.

Brown, S. (2006). A match made in heaven: A marginalized methodology for studying the marginalized. Quality and Quantity, 40 (3), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8828-2

Brown, S., Baltrinic, E., & Jencius, M. (2019) From concourse to Q sample to testing theory. Operant Subjectivity, 41 , 1–17. https://doi.org/10.15133/j.os.2019.002

Camodeca, M., & Coppola, G. (2016). Bullying, empathic concern, and internalization of rules among preschool children: The role of emotion understanding. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40 , 459–465.

Choi, J. K., & Lee, B. S. (2019). Response patterns of nursing unit managers regarding workplace bullying: A Q methodology approach. Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing, 49 , 562–574.

Combes, H., Hardy, G., & Buchan, L. (2004). Using Q-methodology to involve people with intellectual disability in evaluating person-centred planning. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 17 , 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3148.2004.00191.x

Compier-de Block, L. H., Alink, L. R., Linting, M., van den Berg, L. J., Elzinga, B. M., Voorthuis, A., Tollenaar, M. S., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2017). Parent-child agreement on parent-to-child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence, 32 , 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9902-3

Cowie, H., & Olafsson, R. (2000). The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. School Psychology International, 21 , 79–95.

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3 rd ed.). Sage.

Cromer, L. D., & Freyd, J. J. (2009). Hear no evil, see no evil? Associations of gender, trauma history, and values with believing trauma vignettes. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9 (1), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2009.01185.x

De Leeuw, R. R., de Boer, A. A., Beckmann, E. J., van Exel, J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2019). Young children’s perspectives on resolving social exclusion within inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Educational Research, 98 , 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.09.009

De Leeuw, R. R., Little, C., & Rix, J. (2020). Something needs to be said – Some thoughts on the possibilities and limitations of ‘voice.’ International Journal of Educational Research, 104 , 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101694

Duncan, N., & Owens, L. (2011). Bullying, social power and heteronormativity: Girls’ constructions of popularity. Children & Society, 25 , 306–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00378.x

Ellard-Gray, A., Jeffrey, N. K., Choubak, M., Crann, S. E. (2015). Finding the hidden participant: Solutions for recruiting hidden, hard-to-reach, and vulnerable populations.  International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406915621420

Ellingsen, I. T., Thorsen, A. A., Størksen, I. (2014). Revealing children’s experiences and emotions through.  Q Methodology Child Development Research, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/910529

Eriksen, M. I., & Lyng, S. T. (2018). Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education, 30 (3), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1214691

Ey, L., & Spears, B. (2020). Engaging early childhood teachers in participatory co-design workshops to educate young children about bullying. Pastoral Care in Education, 38 , 230–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2020.1788129

Greif, J. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). The assessment of school bullying. Journal of School Violence, 5 , 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v05n03_04

Griffin, R. S., & Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9 , 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(03)00033-8

Goopy, S., & Kassan, A. (2019). Arts-based engagement ethnography: An approach for making research engaging and knowledge transferable when working with harder-to-reach communities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918820424

Hellström, L. (2019). A systematic review of polyvictimization among children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity or Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (13), 2280. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132280

Hellström, L. & Lundberg, A. (2020). Understanding bullying from young people’s perspectives: An exploratory study. Educational Research, 62 (4), 414-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2020.1821388

Hellström, L., Persson, L. & Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying– adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health 73 (4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-73-4

Hill, M. (2006). Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood, 13 (1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568206059972

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64 (1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.598917

Hughes, M. (2016). Critical, respectful, person-centred: Q methodology for educational psychologists. Educational and Child Psychology, 33 (1), 63–75.

Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2002). The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37 (4), 382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

Hutson, E. (2018). Integrative review of qualitative research on the emotional experience of bullying victimization in youth. Journal of School Nursing, 34 (1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840517740192

Jacobs, N., Goossens, L., Dehue, F., Völlink, T., & Lechner, L. (2015). Dutch cyberbullying victims’ experiences, perceptions, attitudes and motivations related to (coping with) cyberbullying: Focus group interviews. Societies, 5 (1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc5010043

Jia, M., & Mikami, A. (2018). Issues in the assessment of bullying: Implications for conceptualizations and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 41 , 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.05.004

John, A., Montgomery, D., & Halliburton Tate, A. (2014). Using Q methodology in conducting research with young children. In O. Saracho (Editor): Handbook of Research Methods in Early Childhood Education , Volume 1, (pp. 147–173), University of Maryland.

Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920922765

Kulig, J. C., Hall, B., & Grant Kalischuk, R. (2008). Bullying perspectives among rural youth: A mixed methods approach. Rural and Remote Health, 8 , 1–11.

Lyon, D., & Carabelli, G. (2016). Researching young people’s orientations to the future: The methodological challenges of using arts practice. Qualitative Research, 16 (4), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115587393

Lundberg, A., de Leeuw, R., & Aliani R. (2020). Using Q methodology: sorting out subjectivity in educational research. Educational Research Review, 31 , 100361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100361

Modin, B. (2012). Beteendeproblem bidrar till utsatthet för mobbning och psykisk ohälsa. I: Skolans betydelse för barns och ungas psykiska hälsa - en studie baserad på den nationella totalundersökningen i årskurs 6 och 9 hösten 2009 behavior problems contribute to victimization from bullying and poor self-related mental health. in: The role of the school for young people’s mental health. A study based on the national Swedish survey of students in grades 6 and 9 in 2009. ( No. 2012–5–15). National Board of Health and Welfare and Centre for Health Equity Studies.

Monks, C. P., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X82352

O’Brien, N. (2019). Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 1984. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015588502

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20 , 259–280. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002166442

Punch, S. (2002). Research with children: The same or different from research with adults? Childhood, 9 (3), 321–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568202009003005

Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, R. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3 (9), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1017

Scheithauer, H., Smith, P. K., & Samara, M. (2016). Cultural issues in bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents: Methodological approaches for comparative research. International Journal of Developmental Science 10 , 3–8.  https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-16000085

Scherer, L. (2016). Children’s engagements with visual methods through qualitative research in the primary school as “Art that didn’t work.” Sociological Research Online, 21 (1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.3805

Shaghaghi, A., Bhopal, R. S., & Sheikh, A. (2011). Approaches to recruiting ‘hard to reach’ populations into research: A review of the literature. Health Promotion Perspectives, 1 , 86–94. https://doi.org/10.5681/hpp.2011.009

Shemmings, D., & Ellingsen, I. T. (2012). Using Q methodology in qualitative interviews. In J.F. Gubrium, J.A. Holstein, A.B. Marvasti, & K.D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (2 nd ed), (pp. 415–426). Sage.

Slaughter, V., Dennis, M. J., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20 , 545–564.

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen–country international comparison. Child Development 73 (4): 1119–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Smith, P. K., Robinson, S., & Marchi, B. (2016). Cross-national data on victims of bullying: What is really being measured? International Journal of Developmental Science, 10 (1–2), 9–19. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-150174

Stephenson, W. (1935). Technique of factor analysis. Nature, 136 , 297.

Stephenson, W. (1953). The study of behavior: Q technique and its methodology. Chicago University Press.

Storey, K., & Slaby, R. (2013). Eyes on bullying in early childhood. Education Development Center. Retrieved from www.eyesonbullying.org

Swearer, S. M., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen-Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization. The problem of comparability across studies and across methodologies. In S.R. Jimerson, S.M. Swearer, & D.L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp 305- 328). Routledge

Sydor, A. (2013). Conducting research into hidden or hard-to-reach populations. Nurse Researcher, 20 , 33–37.

Thorsen, A. A., & Størksen, I. (2010). Ethical, methodological, and practical reflections when using Q methodology in research with young children. Operant Subjectivity, 33 (1–2), 3–25.

Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27 , 16–21.

Vacchelli, E. (2018). Embodiment in qualitative research: Collage making with migrant, refugee and asylum seeking women. Qualitative Research, 18 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447339069.003.0004

Waters, E., Stewart-Brown, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2003). Agreement between adolescent self-report and parent reports of health and well-being: Results of an epidemiological study. Child Care Health Development, 29 , 501–509. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.2003.00370.x

Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method and interpretation . Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Wester, K. L., & Trepal, H. C. (2004). Youth perceptions of bullying: Thinking outside the box. Operant Subjectivity, 27 , 68–83.

Woodhead, M., & Faulkner, D. (2008). Subjects, objects or participants? Dilemmas of psychological research. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children (2nd ed., pp. 10–39). Routledge.

Wright, P. N. (2013). Is Q for you?: Using Q methodology within geographical and pedagogical research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 37 (2), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2012.729814

Download references

Open access funding provided by Malmö University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden

Adrian Lundberg & Lisa Hellström

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adrian Lundberg .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval, consent to participate, consent for publication, conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

The original online version of this article was revised: References are not in alphabetical order.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lundberg, A., Hellström, L. Q Methodology as an Innovative Addition to Bullying Researchers’ Methodological Repertoire. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 209–219 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00127-9

Download citation

Accepted : 26 April 2022

Published : 11 May 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00127-9

Share this article

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

• Bullying prevention
• Children’s voice
• Hard-to-reach
• Methodological issues
• Q methodology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples

Looking for an exciting research topic about bullying? This problem is very controversial, sensitive, and definitely worth studying

🏆 Top 10 Bullying Topics for Research Papers

📃 bullying essay: writing tips, 🏆 best bullying topics to write about, ⚡ most shocking bullying topics to write about, ✅ simple & easy shocking bullying essay titles, ✍️ bullying essay topics for college, ❓ research questions about bullying.

Examples of bullying can be found everywhere: in schools, workplaces, and even on the Internet (in the form of cyberbullying).

In this article, we’ve collected top bullying research paper topics and questions, as well as bullying essay samples and writing tips. Get inspired with us!

• Direct and indirect bullying: compare & contrast
• The causes of bullying
• Classroom bullying and its effects
• Social isolation as a form of bullying
• Bullying and academic performance
• Passive and active victims of bullying: compare and contrast
• The role of social agencies in bullying prevention
• Public policy for bullying and aggression
• Bullying behavior and psychological health
• Aggressive children and their family background

A bullying essay is a popular assignment in various subjects, including psychology, sociology, and education. Writing an excellent paper on the matter requires more than just in-depth research and planning. Don’t worry; there are some tips that will make writing an essay on bullying much easier:

• Choose a topic that allows analyzing and interpreting the problem. Instead of merely describing what bullying is, try to dig deeper into its causes, consequences, and solutions. If your professor didn’t suggest any topics, you may research bullying essay topics online and select one that would be exciting for you to explore.
• Read sample articles and papers online to see how other students approached the subject. Notice the bits that work and don’t work, and write them out to make the process of creating your essay easier. If you’re struggling with finding enough examples online, you may want to expand your search to discrimination essay topics and materials.
• Research what scholars say about bullying. Articles in scholarly journals are an excellent source of information because they are usually trustworthy. If you’re still in school, your ability to navigate the library or online databases will also impress your tutor. As you start researching, you will find that there is a great variety of studies, and it’s challenging to find the relevant ones. Narrowing down your search would help you to do that. For instance, if you are writing a cyber bullying essay, try searching for social media bullying or online anti-bullying services.
• Include real-life experiences where relevant. Unfortunately, bullying is a common problem in many institutions, and if you haven’t experienced it, your friends or family members probably have. If your tutor allows personal input, explore real-life experiences with bullying. Note the effects, preventive measures that worked or didn’t work, and what a person used to cope with bullying. If personal input is not allowed, you could ask your friends or relatives for ideas and then find high-quality sources that discuss similar problems.
• If you can, be creative about it! A powerful bullying essay example draws from a variety of sources to present material in a creative way and engage readers. Hence, this might be an excellent opportunity for you to include images or graphs in your paper. For example, anti-bullying posters could complement the sections of your work that talks about solutions to the problem. Quotes about bullying coming from famous persons would also be influential, especially if you include them at the beginning of your piece. If you like drawing or painting, you could try to put some of your ideas in graphic form – this will definitely earn you some extra marks! Just make sure to check with your tutor to see whether or not creative input is allowed.
• Structure your paper well to avoid gaps or inconsistencies. It would be beneficial to create a detailed bullying essay outline before you start working. A typical essay should include an introduction, two to three main paragraphs, and a conclusion. The first paragraph of your work should consist of some background information, whereas the last one should restate the points and close up the paper. A good bullying essay introduction should also feature a thesis statement that shows what the piece is about.

These tips will help you to write top-notch essays on bullying, as well as on related subjects. Don’t forget to browse our blog some more to find other helpful materials, including essay titles!

• The Problem of Bullying and Possible Solutions In general, bullying is a critical and complex issue prevailing among children; thus, it is essential to adopt different solutions to tackle it.
• Cyber Bullying Issue Therefore, the goal of this paper is to analyse who the victims of cyber bullying are and the influence it has on them.
• Bullying in School Face-to-face bullying is an interesting area of study because it clearly demonstrates bullying in school. Students consider bullying as a school culture even though it is contrary to the school rules and regulations of schools.
• The Impact of Workplace Bullying The negative impacts of bullying in the workplace develop as a result of ignorance among employees regarding the vice, unreported cases, as well as the negligence of organizational leaders.
• Bullying and Its Effects in Society Secondary research is critical in the development of a background to the research, which helps in determining the validity of the problem and suggested research methodologies.
• Cyber Bullying and Positivist Theory of Crime Learning theory approaches to the explanation of criminal behavior have been associated with one of the major sociological theories of crime, the differential association theory.
• Social Influence on Bullying in Schools The theory helps us to understand why the stronger members of the school population are likely to “rule” over the weaker members of the school as described in the social hierarchy concept in the theory.
• Bullying and Child Development Bullying is one of the common vices in schools that influences a lot of growth and development of children. Bullying also affects the ability of children to concentrate in school because they are always on […]
• Character Traits of Bullying Despite the fact that such characteristics may differ from child to child, it is the common feature of difference that makes the target children get noticed by the bullies.
• Bullying and Cyberbullying in Modern Society Cyberbullying among adolescents and teenagers is defined as the purposeful and repetitive harm done by one or more peers in cyberspace as a result of using digital devices and social media platforms.
• School Bullying and Moral Development The middle childhood is marked by the development of basic literacy skills and understanding of other people’s behavior that would be crucial in creating effective later social cognitions. Therefore, addressing bullying in schools requires strategies […]
• Is Cyber Bullying Against Teenagers More Detrimental Than Face-To-Face Bullying? Social networking has also contributed greatly to the issue of cyber bullying especially in making it more harmful as compared to face-to-face bullying.
• The Issue of Bullying in the Schools It gives me joy to know that the issue of bullying is now a pubic affair since bullying stories were unheard of when I was growing up.
• Cyber-Bullying Is a Crime: Discussion It is easy to see the effects of cyber-bullying but it is hard to find out who is the bully making it hard for authorities to pin the blame on the perpetrator of a crime […]
• Verbal Bullying at School: How It Should Be Stopped This paper highlights some of the best practices that can be used by teachers in order to address this problem. So, this information can be of great benefit to them.
• Bullying and Harassment in the Healthcare Workplace This paper is written to explore the origins of discrimination and harassment in the healthcare workplace. Bullying begins early in medical college and residencies; it has been referred to as an element of the learning […]
• Discouraging and Eliminating Cyber Bullying Resources Role of the resource/input Statement forms To facilitate information transfer to the staff Counseling Personnel To arm students against the problem Bullying report system To create efficient internet enhance report system Regulation implementation documents […]
• Bullying in the Workplace Organizational leaders have an ethical obligation to ensure that they deal with cases of bullying within the workplace in a professional manner that demonstrates equality, honesty, and high sensitivity to the needs of others.
• Incivility, Violence, and Bullying in the Healthcare Workplace The following step is to gather the team and communicate the necessity of change, assigning some individuals for the positions related to the change, in other terms, a support team.
• Social Psychological Concepts of Bullying and Its Types Some of the factors that contribute to bullying include poor parenting, economic challenges, lack of mentorship, and jealousy among others. One of the main concepts used to explain bullying is that of parenting roles and […]
• Bullying, Its Forms, and Counteractions In addition, it is necessary to support those at the center of this bullying, as this can protect them from harmful effects and consequences.
• Bullying Through Social Media: Research Proposal The hypothesis of the study is as follows: the role of adolescents in a cyberbullying situation is interconnected with their psychological characteristics.
• Fights and Bullying Among Middle School Learners Alongside the positivist philosophy, the research adopted the survey strategy that involved the use of self-administered questionnaires to collect from the participants.
• School Bullying: Methods for Managing the Problem The investigation of relevant studies on the methods for stopping school bullying reveals that the most effective ways of eliminating this type of behavior include providing training for teachers, encouraging students to participate in the […]
• The Effects of Cyber-Bullying and Cyber-Stalking on the Society In particular, one should focus on such issues as the disrespect for a person’s autonomy, the growing intensity of domestic violence and deteriorating mental health in the country.
• The Essence of Bullying: Healthy Societal Relations The aggressor frequently abuses the victim’s lower social standing to gain control of the situation and cause harm, which is another characteristic of the phenomenon.
• Bullying: Violence in Children and Adolescents Bullying is one of the most common manifestations of peer violence in children and adolescents. Prevention of bullying, cyberbullying included, has to occur in accordance with the IBSE Standards of social and emotional learning.
• Effective Ways to Deal With Bullying in US Schools Teachers should ensure the bully is aware of the improper behavior, why it is improper, and the repercussions of the behavior.
• The Gay Teen Suicide & Bullying The article explains that the ones who survive may have access to extensive facilities, support, and status beyond their world of bullies, which sounds reasonable for me.
• Bullying in Nursing: Preventive Measures The prevention of bullying within the workplace is the responsibility of the leaders and managers. One of the significant principles which the leaders can implement is the behavioral code for the employees.
• Network Bullying: School Policy Framework The first step is to have a careful conversation with the student and an assessment by the school psychologist to ensure that there is a fright.
• How to Reduce Bullying in Senior Facilities One of the main reasons an individual may commit suicide due to bullying is because it may make an individual develop a negative self-image after the bullying incident. Some of the major bullying incidences that […]
• Active Shooter and Nursing Bullying Nurses should lock all doors and use tables and other objects to reinforce them to prevent any possibility of the active shooter getting to the patients’ room.
• Racist Bullying Among Black Students in US Universities This research focuses on the impact of bullying and racism among African American students in the country. What are the impacts of bullying and racism among Black students in U.S.universities?
• Bullying and Autism Spectrum Disorder In fact, bullying as a social phenomenon can be characterized as a social and interaction issue; therefore, it is possible to analyze the connection between autism and acts of bullying and inappropriate behavior.
• Eliminating the Problem of Online Bullying Eliminating the problem of online bullying is vital for improving the mental health of adolescents and young adults and allowing them to build their lives free of adverse external influences. It is possible to see […]
• Sexual Bullying in Schools and Its Influence The author states the difference in the mental and physical maturation of girls and boys as one of the core roots of the issue.
• Bullying in Healthcare and Its Consequences Nancy was big and the manager used that to tease her every opportunity she got. It was important to confront the bully and support the victim.
• The ABC Model of Crisis: Bullying at School The next step is the identification of the nature of the crisis, and thus questions are as follows: Who is bullying you?
• Queer (LGBT) Teenage Bullying at School The importance of this source to the research is associated with the significant role that youth organizations have to play towards minimizing bullying among LGBT students.
• Bullying of Children: Misconceptions and Preventive Measures As a result, the density of shows and articles devoted to bullying creates an illusion that this event appears more often than it does in reality.
• Bullying Behavior and Impact of Hegemonic Masculinity Rosen and Nofziger applied a quantitative research design to explore the relationships between students’ bullying experiences and race, age, and socioeconomic status and identify the frequency of bullying.
• Bullying and Incivility in Clinical Setting The problem of bullying and incivility in a clinical setting can negatively affect the quality of care provided, so it needs to be managed.
• Bullying and Its Influences on a Person It is common for victims of bullying to develop mental health issues, as they were placed in stressful situations and had a constant fear along with depression in some cases. Making friends is one of […]
• Overview of the Problem of Bullying Undoubtedly, there is no way each person would be able to share and divide their opinion with everyone else because people are not identical, and they tend to have various perspectives.
• Bullying on Social Media Platforms It is consistent and repeating, taking advantage of the Internet’s anonymity with the main goal to anger, scare, or shame a victim.
• “Bullying in Schools”: The Aspects of Bullying In their article, Menesini and Salmivalli examine the current state of knowledge on the topic and thoroughly discuss all of the aspects of bullying.
• Moral Development and Bullying in Children The understanding of moral development following the theories of Kohlberg and Gilligan can provide useful solutions to eliminating bullying in American schools.
• Analysis of Bullying and Parenting Style Since the given topic usually refers to children and adolescents, it is evident that their parents hold a portion of responsibility because the adults affect the growth and development of young individuals.
• Hate Crimes – Bullying More than two-thirds of children and adolescents experience bullying and more than one-fourth of them report extreme forms of coercion.
• Bullying Management: Mass Awareness Program Bulletin.”Teachers, trained to help to rebuild trust, confidence, growth, and commitment through mass awareness to arrest bullying in high schools”. The proposed mass action program is meant to promote awareness on the need to stop […]
• An Anti-Bullying Program Integrated With PRAISE by Ackerman I chose to describe bullying because of the importance of the topic and due to my personal interest in it. Education will eliminate most of the reasons for bullying and provide students with the E […]
• Bullying Through Social Media: Methods An Informed Consent Document will be provided to participants prior to the research, explaining the purpose of the study and promising to protect their identity.
• Bullying Through Social Media In particular, inequality in the position of the persecutor and the victim is evident – the aggressor can be anonymous, and there can be many of them.
• Bullying of Nurses During the COVID-19 Pandemic Then, the principles of adult learning will be used to develop and implement an information product to improve the nursing workforce’s bullying awareness and the knowledge of healthy conflict resolution in the workplace.
• Bullying in Healthcare Organizations: Impact on Nursing Practice Bullying in business entities is a common phenomenon, but the extent of its influence on the “production process” in healthcare and medicine institutions is only beginning to be recognized.
• Workplace Bullying Among Nurses in the Acute Setting Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the frequency of conflicts between nurses and their colleagues and managers has increased significantly in my workplace.
• Bullying Perpetration Among School-Aged Children Mucherah et al.examined how the school climate and teachers’ sanctions against bullying relate to the risk of becoming a victim or perpetrator of bullying.
• Programming for a Year 5 Class on Bullying As a result, in Lesson 6, they will offer their project addressing bullying behaviour and present it to their class, which is the main aim of the Unit Plan.
• Injury and Violence Prevention: – Bullying The aim of preventing injury and violence from bullying is to enable the student to have a healthy social and physical life that will enable them to perform well in their studies and live healthily.
• Cyber-Bullying vs. Traditional Bullying: Its Psychological Effects The researchers presented the recent statistics in order to illustrate the negative social and psychological effects of cyber-bullying in contrast to the traditional bullying in schools.
• Bullying in the Workplace Old Nurse to New Nurse This unvoiced scourge in nursing is characteristically encouraged by the need of bullies to have a total control of a person. Resignation of nurses due to bullying can lead to shortage of nurses in hospitals.
• Bullying and Peer Abuse Especially at work, targets fear coming to work and this will have an adverse result in the efficiency of the staff in the hospital.
• Bullying in the Nursing Workplace Bullying in the nursing workplace, in this case, causes the one bullied to have a feeling of defenselessness and takes away the nurses’ right to dignity at his or her workplace.
• Cyberbullying and Bullying: Similarities While deciding on fitting and balanced sanctions, it is vital to reflect on the ways in which cyberbullying events differ in effect in comparison to other forms of bullying.
• Protection From Bullying: Methods That Work Because of this, it is vital that parents, teachers, and guardians educate themselves on the nature of bullying and work together to develop effective methods and strategies that would help to overcome the problem.
• Psychology: Social Media and Bullying The purpose of this paper is to discuss the issue of social media and bullying and express the author’s opinion on the matter.
• Bullying of LGBTQ Students in American Schools The chosen article focuses on the issue of bullying of LGBTQ students in American schools and its legal repercussions. The author shows that students who are openly gay or bi, as well as those who […]
• Workplace Bullying and Its Impact on People and Society The paper follows a traditional structure with the introduction and body paragraphs that provide essential information devoted to the problem, and improve the understanding of the concept of bullying.
• “Bullying Behavior Among Radiation Therapists” by Johnson and Trad The literature review encompassed a considerable number of sources pertinent to the study and recent enough to be relevant; all the publications were dated within the last fifteen years.
• Human Rights Issues in Australia: Bullying Among School-Going Age and Young People The focus of the topic of the day is on bullying. It is used to prevent or avoid the occurrence of a bullying experience.
• Bullying and Worker’s Harassment in Western Australia In most of the armed services in Australia, new recruits and women are commonly the victims of bullying and harassment despite the fact that it is unacceptable.
• Aggression and Bullying in the Workplace Investigation Aggression, the effects of which are often equated with the death wish, is an instinct like any other and in natural conditions, it helps just as much as any other to ensure the survival of […]
• Bullying: History and Mechanisms for Prevention Students are encouraged to not participate in bullying and to help prevent bullying of others through positive social reactions to incidences of bullying” and Sharing of Scenarios: “Each group will give feedback and share other […]
• Behaviour Management: Bullying The typical behaviors which I saw in the child who got bullied are: The victim of this bullying is physically weak and a soft-natured one.
• Conflict Resolution Tactics and Bullying This study is interesting to the extent that it shows how the social environment impacts the development of a child and how it shapes his or her conflict resolution techniques.
• School Bullying: Case Analysis Even today there is no generally accepted definition of bullying but it is thought that when an individual is for a long period of time is exposed to repeat negative actions and behavior by one […]
• Bullying in the Workplace as a Psychological Harassment Another form of bullying in the workplace is physical assault in the sense that if the workers are not at ease with each other and when the rules and regulations are not at all observed, […]
• “Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying” by Frisen et al. The second and the third aims of the study were “to describe how adolescents perceive bullies” and “to describe what adolescents believe to be important in order to stop bullying”, respectively.
• The Long Term Effects of Bullying in Elementary School Wolke and Lereya argue that the problem is that the majority of studies on bullying are cross-sectional and only use follow-ups after a short period of time.
• Anti-Bullying and Work Quality Improvement Initiative Given the specifics of the work of nurses, conflicts of this kind negatively affect both the whole process of work and the health of patients in particular.
• Workplace Bullying, Salivary Cortisol and Long-Term Sickness Absence The purpose of this cohort-based study was to investigate the extent to which cortisol levels were associated with sickness absence and the relationships between workplace bullying and sickness absence through the prism of cortisol use.
• Workplace Bullying in Australia It is possible to offer several recommendations that can reduce the risk of bullying in organisations. In this case, more attention should be paid to the absence of mechanisms that can protect the victims of […]
• Domestic Violence and Bullying in Schools It also states the major variables related to bullying in schools. They will confirm that social-economic status, gender, and race can contribute to bullying in schools.
• Staff Training as a Solution to Workplace Bullying Furthermore, it has an appeal to logos as the writer has facts about the prevalence of workplace bullying in the USA.
• The “Bully-Free” Initiative: Bullying in Education The students need to have a clear idea that bullying goes against the rules of the school and which actions may be considered bullying.
• Free Speech vs. Bullying Laws One of the topical aspects of modern democracy is the freedom of speech expressed in an ability to come up with personal ideas and the lack of restrictions on the right of expression through publicity.
• Gender and Bullying Issues in Nursing A lack of tolerance for workplace harassment and bullying is likely to lead to the deterioration of the situation and further misunderstanding and tension in an organization.
• Bullying and Cyberbullying Among Peers They are facing the dilemma of how to react, whether they have to fight a superior force of the enemy or to complain to teachers and parents, undermining their reputation.
• Bullying in Schools and Its Major Reasons As of now, the most important goal in research studies covering the topic of bullying in schools is to understand the mechanisms behind bullying promotion and prevention.
• Bullying in Schools: Worldwide Study and Survey The parents were asked to rate the frequency of the bullying that their children experience and to describe the experience of bullying that their children went through.
• Bullying Prevention Programs Some teachers and professors claim that their students cannot show their potential in their hobbies due to the limitations they experience because of bullies around them. As it is mentioned above, educators do not control […]
• Bullying and Its Impact Thus, the current paper is dedicated to the issue of bullying and its effects as well as anti-bullying practices as related to peer victimization.
• Dealing With Workplace Bullying According to the report presented by the University of Louisville, workplace bullying is a repeated action of one employee or a group of employees towards another individual or group. Dealing with bullying in the workplace […]
• Bullying Policies in Walton School District and Georgia University The sample bullying policy language in Walton School District is very similar to the language in the policy of the University of Georgia.
• Amanda Todd’s Bullying and Suicide Story She was fifteen years old, and her story created a major uproar in the press, as it showed the true nature of bullying and the effects it has on the person.
• Bullying in America: Causes and Prevention That is why it is important to pay attention to the reasons why bullying occurs and ways in which it can be reduced.
• Bullying, Facts and Countermeasures Whether it is the bully or the bullied, the parents will need to do a lot to see to it that their children are brought up in the best of the behaviors.
• Bullying as Social and Criminal Deviance The most important step in the student’s guide to research that I would need to analyze bullying is defining the topic.
• Bullying and Legislation in Australian Workplace According to the authors of the article, workplace bullying can be characterized as internal violence. According to the authors of the article, bullying is a widespread phenomenon and is a common attribute of many organizations.
• Bullying at Australian School: Causes and Solution The technological breakthrough that was witnessed in the late 90s and the early 2000s also contributed to the development of the phenomenon, sparking the concepts such as cyberbullying and online bullying.
• Workplace Bullying in The Playground Never Ends The primary reason for becoming a bully is primarily seen in fear to lose authority or formal positions in an organization and have more institutional power than that of the targets.
• Bullying and Suicide in High Schools The main limitation of this research is that the scholars surveyed the victims more often. The victims of cyberbullying also had a tendency to be depressed and contemplate suicide.
• School-Aged Children’ Bullying Behaviors It is due to this that the work of Janssen et al.sought to show just how potentially damaging this behavior could be and the potential psychological repercussions it could have on young children due to […]
• College Students: Suicide and Bullying-Methods The analysts used this tool to report the mood of the participants by posting quizzes, which the students answered while filling the questionnaire.
• Childhood Bullying and Adulthood Suicide Connection In this regard, the seriousness of the issue is depicted in research results that indicate that at least 50% of children and youth in the US have experienced bullying situations as either bullies or victims […]
• Girl-To-Girl Bullying and Mean Stinks Program The positive results can be achieved by the implementation of the multiple educational programs, the increase in public awareness, and promotion of the values of the healthy relationships.”Mean Stinks” is exactly the program with the […]
• Association of Parenting Factors With Bullying The lack of the parental support is the main cause of students’ deviant behaviors at school, including the cases of bullying, and those parents who pay much attention to developing their career cannot provide the […]
• Workplace Bullying and Its Impact on Performance Workplace bullying refers to a deliberate, repeated, and continuous mistreatment of a worker or a group of workers by one or more colleagues in the workplace.
• The Problem of Workplace Bullying In particular, this paper will include the discussion of the research articles, reports and case studies that describe the causes of workplace bullying and the strategies used by companies in an effort to overcome it.
• College Students: Suicide and Bullying The misconception that bullying is a minor issue among college students has contributed to the high number of students who suffer because of bullying.
• Homosexual Students and Bullying Specifically, the section addresses the prevalence of bullying in schools and the level of bullying in bisexuals, gay males, and lesbians.
• Social Psychology of Violence and Bullying in Schools Bullying is a common phenomenon in schools and it is reported that it results in violence in learning institutions in the end.
• Bullying and Suicide: The Correlation Between Bullying and Suicide Nonetheless, the extensive research shows that the correlation exists and bullying is one of the risk factors for development of suicidal ideas in adolescents.
• Nature of Bullying In this paper, central focus is going to be on the nature of bullying of children in my hometown, Orlando Florida, how it can be solved, and most importantly; establishing the importance of having knowledge […]
• Cyber Bullying Reduction Program Table of Activities Activity Significance Assembling parents/guardians, students and teachers to announce and explain the program in the institution To enlighten parents/guardians, students and teachers about the rules and regulation enacted due to the threat […]
• Cyber Bullying Prevention in Learning Institutions: Systematic Approach To start with, the students are provided with ways of reporting their concern to the educational institution, and when the staff members of the institution receive the report, they evaluate the information together with the […]
• High School Bullying Effective Responses Emphasis will also be made on the kind of audience to read this article because the contents of this study need to be at par with other similar articles in the journal to be selected.
• Bullying and Suicide Among Teenagers Specific objectives Analyze the causes of bullying among teenagers in the country Analyze the effects of bullying among victims, perpetrators and by-standers Analyze the relationship between bullying in school and suicide among teenagers in the […]
• Bullying as a Relational Aggression This resistance has been one of the obstacles to eliminating the cyber bullying in the schools. Schools and districts have been involved in the Challenge Day activities where children are advised on how to handle […]
• Social Bullying in Jeff Cohen’s “Monster Culture” It is clear that his part of character is mostly dominant in the childhood stages, as children are not able to develop a sense of morality and predict the consequences of their actions.
• Cyber Bullying and Its Forms The difference between the conventional way of bullying and cyber bullying is that in conventional bullying, there is contact between the bully and the victim.
• Problem of Workplace Bullying Authority intervention should occur when the employees fail to respond to awareness intervention, and thus decide to continue with their behaviors.
• Problem of Childhood Bullying in Modern Society To begin with, the family which is the basic and the most important unit in the society as well as the primary socializing agent plays a major role in shaping behavior of children include bullying.
• Problem of the Managing Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace Employees in an organization have a specific role that they are supposed to play and this means that there might be shortcomings which should not lead to bullying.
• School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention It is for this reason that there has been need for the intervention of the community and the government to address the issue of bullying schools lest the school environment becomes the worst place to […]
• Cyber Bullying as a Virtual Menace The use of information and communication technologies to support a deliberate and most of the time repeated hostile behavior by an individual or groups of people with the sole intention of harming others, one is […]
• Does Bullying Cause Emotional Problems? However, the current study was relevant because of this design, for the scope of the study covered as well as the results were accurate, and the conclusions drawn were correct.
• Ban High School Bullying A number of stakeholders contribute to the high prevalence of bullying in American schools. Schools that ignore bullying are a big part of the problem and they need to be held accountable.
• The Problem of Bullying While most states in the United States of America have laws to protect people from bullying, the federal government is yet to enact an anti-bullying law.
• Ethical Case: Facebook Gossip or Cyberbullying? The best option to Paige is to apologize publicly and withdraw her comments. The final stage is to act and reflect the outcome of the choice made.
• Bullying on the Rise: Should Federal Government Enact Federal-Bullying Laws? This paper will thus use both primary and secondary data to discuss the prevalence of bullying in schools and whether the federal govern should enact federal laws to curb the social vice at school.
• Bullying in the Schools Furthermore, the law states that training should be done to the teachers as well as the other members of staff on how to deal with bullying and the law also needs the schools to report […]
• Troubled Adolescent due to Bullying His lowered self-esteem would make him to observe the common behaviours of the older boys quietly and accept the situation as a cultural practice.
• Workplace bullying: does it exist?
• What are the three key elements of bullying?
• How does bullying affect those who observe it?
• Direct and indirect bullying: what is the difference?
• What families do bullies typically come from?
• Aggressive children: what is their future?
• How to prevent bullying in schools?
• School bullying and domestic violence: is there a connection?
• Cyberbullying: how to prevent it?
• What can parents do to prevent their children from bullying?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 22). 154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/bullying-essay-examples/

"154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples." IvyPanda , 22 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/bullying-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples'. 22 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/bullying-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/bullying-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "154 Bullying Topics & Bullying Essay Examples." February 22, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/bullying-essay-examples/.

• Cyber Bullying Essay Ideas
• Abuse Research Topics
• Crime Ideas
• Discrimination Essay Titles
• Criticism Research Topics
• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Child Abuse Essay Topics
• Children’s Rights Research Ideas
• Equality Topics
• Homophobia Topics
• School Violence Ideas
• Respect Essay Topics
• Social Inequality Paper Topics
• Suicide Topics
• Youth Violence Research Topics

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.

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).

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 ).

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

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).

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 ).

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

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). ❑

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

• Bullying and Crime Research Paper

This sample bullying research paper on bullying and crime features: 4300 words (approx. 22 pages) and a bibliography with 22 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

School bullying has received the attention of researchers and program planners in both developed and developing countries. It is a special category of aggressive behavior that has been addressed through numerous anti-bullying programs and, in some cases, through wider multiple component programs. Various anti-bullying agencies have highlighted the importance of intervention research for the development of safer school communities, where students can develop their full potential without being exposed to bullying and its detrimental effects. A vast number of cross-sectional studies have provided evidence of the negative impact of bullying on children’s concurrent health.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

This research paper reports on an updated systematic review and meta-analysis that was undertaken under the aegis of the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and further supported by the British Academy and conducted by the current authors. Only longitudinal prospective studies were included in the review, which aimed to examine to what extent school bullying predicts later offending and violence. Significant effect sizes were found even after controlling for other major childhood risk factors. Being a bully increased the likelihood of being an offender by more than half and increased the likelihood of being violent by two thirds. These results either reflect the persistence of an underlying aggressive or antisocial tendency or a facilitating effect of school bullying on later offending and violence (or both).

The implication is that high quality bullying prevention programs (and possibly multiple component programs which also target aggression) should be promoted. They could be viewed as an early form of crime prevention. They can potentially have long-term effects by improving the future psychosocial adjustment of school bullies and reducing the associated health, welfare, education, and other costs.

Introduction

School bullying has recently become a topic of major public concern and has attracted a lot of media attention, with articles in major newspapers and magazines reporting cases of children who committed (or attempted) suicide because of their victimization at school and parents suing school authorities for their failure to protect their offspring from continued bullying victimization (e.g., Ttofi and Farrington 2012). There is, nevertheless, a number of “skeptics” who still perceive school bullying as being part of a normal developmental process, or as one of those school experiences that prepare children for the grown-up world. Scientific evidence regarding possible detrimental effects of school bullying on children’s mental health and future psychosocial adjustment can only be provided through a systematic review and meta-analysis, providing an unbiased standardized effect size and defining the magnitude of the effect.

Background Research on Bullying and Crime

School bullying is a special category of aggressive behavior involving repeated unprovoked acts against less powerful (emotionally or physically) individuals (Farrington 1993; Olweus 1993). Of course, schools, like other institutions, will always be a place in which the basic human motive of aggression will be demonstrated. However, school bullying should not be confused with more or less normal aggressive interactions such as rough and tumble play.

Scientific interest in the problem of bullying and its negative short-term and long-term effects emerged after the well-publicized suicides of three Norwegian boys in 1982, which were attributed to severe peer bullying (Olweus 1993). School bullying has gradually become a topic of major public concern via “bullying awareness days,” national initiatives in various (European) countries (Smith and Brain 2000), and anti-bullying research networks across the world (e.g., Anti-Bullying Alliance; BRNET; International Observatory for Violence in Schools; PREVNet).

Any suggestion regarding the short-term negative impact of peer aggression and victimization seems reasonable even to the lay mind. Establishing, on the other hand, the long-term effects of school bullying and arguing that children involved in peer aggression are more likely to follow an antisocial path (compared with noninvolved students) is more challenging. Some early longitudinal studies did provide evidence of the long-term impact of school bullying and, notably, established the intergenerational transmission of school bullying. In the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, for example, boys who were bullies at age fourteen tended, at age thirty-two, to have children who were bullies (Farrington 1993). As another example, in his follow-up study of over 700 Stockholm boys, Olweus (1993) reported that 36 % of bullies at ages thirteen to sixteen were convicted three or more times between ages sixteen and twenty-four, compared with 10 % of the remainder.

There have been surprisingly few recently published longitudinal studies on the developmental pathways of children involved in school bullying since the seminal work of Olweus in Scandinavia and some other European examples. Two special issues in peer-reviewed journals have recently been published in an attempt to address this gap in research literature (Farrington et al. 2011; Ttofi et al. 2011a). Both issues presented new findings on the long-term negative consequences of school bullying based on major prospective longitudinal studies from around the world. Longitudinal investigators of twenty-nine studies conducted analyses for a more comprehensive British Academy funded project, which examined the long-term association of school bullying with both internalizing (such as anxiety, self-esteem, and stress) and externalizing (such as aggression, alcohol, and drug use) problems (see Farrington et al. 2012, Table 4, for a list of all contributors).

The special issue of Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health focused on the association between bullying perpetration at school and offending later in life. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic was carried out (Ttofi et al. 2011c). The special issue of the Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research focused on the association between bullying victimization (i.e., being bullied) and internalizing problems later in life, such as anxiety and depression. A systematic review and meta-analysis was again carried out examining the extent to which bullying victimization at school predicted depression (Ttofi et al. 2011b), showing that the probability of being depressed up to seven years later in life (M = 7.13 years; SD = 8.79) was significantly higher for victims of school bullying than for control students, i.e., children not involved in school bullying.

Building upon the above-mentioned research activities, an effort was made to update the relevant systematic reviews (Farrington et al. 2012) and to study further outcomes, such as violence (Ttofi et al. 2012). This research paper presents results from the updated systematic review on the association of school bullying with offending later in life. Additional analyses are presented on the long-term link of bullying with violence.

Bullying and Crime Research Methods

The main objectives of the systematic review were two-fold. Firstly, to assess whether bullying at school (perpetration and victimization) was a significant risk factor predicting offending and violence later in life (unadjusted effect sizes). Secondly, to assess whether these associations were still significant after controlling for other major childhood risk factors, measured at the baseline period (adjusted effect sizes). Results on offending and violence were carefully treated in separate analyses and the outcome measures under each category generally did not overlap. However, it is possible that in some studies, outcome measures such as “police arrests” would include violence. “Offending” included outcome measures such as police or court contact, property offending, criminal convictions, property theft, vandalism, shoplifting, vehicle theft, etc. “Violence” included outcome measures such as forced sexual contact, criminal violence, physical fights, violent convictions, violent offending, weapon carrying, assault, etc.

Further analyses were conducted to investigate moderators that might explain variability in effect sizes, such as the age at which bullying was measured (Time 1), the age at which the outcome measures were taken (Time 2), the number of covariates controlled for in the adjusted effect sizes, the length of the follow-up period (measured in years), and the way in which the outcomes were measured (i.e., official data versus self-reports).

Stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria were set in advance. For example, reports were included only if they were based on prospective longitudinal data. The predictor must have been a measure of school bullying (and not other more general forms of peer aggression/victimization) and must have preceded the outcome (i.e., offending or violence). A clear measurement of offending and/or violence must have been included in the report as an outcome measure. Studies were included if participants were school-aged children in the community and exposure to bullying (perpetration and victimization) specified the school years. Published and unpublished reports of the literature were included in order to minimize the possibility of publication bias in the results.

Reports were excluded if the character of the data was qualitative in nature (e.g., qualitative data based on interviews) and did not allow calculation of an effect size. This did not apply if a qualitative method (e.g., interviews or observation studies) was used to obtain a quantitative measure. If the outcome measure (offending or violence) was part of a wider theoretical construct (e.g., externalizing or antisocial behavior), then the relevant report was again excluded. Reports based on clinic samples or incarcerated youth were also excluded.

Extensive searches were carried out and a detailed description of them can be found in the Swedish report (Farrington et al. 2012) and the most recent work focusing on violent outcomes (Ttofi et al. 2012). In total, the same searching strategies were repeated in 19 electronic databases, and the full volumes of 63 journals were searched either online or in print. In the Swedish report, readers can also find detailed tables of the key features of each report, such as the sample size, the country where the study took place, the exact confounds controlled for at the baseline period, etc.

Bullying and Crime Research Results

In total, 661 reports concerned with the association of school bullying with internalizing (e.g., anxiety, depression, self-esteem, etc.) and externalizing (e.g., aggressive behavior, conduct problems, offending, etc.) problems were located. All reports were screened in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria and classified in five different categories (see Farrington et al. 2012, Table 5). Further to a detailed screening of all manuscripts, a total number of 48 reports, corresponding to 29 longitudinal studies, presented data on the long-term association of school bullying (perpetration and victimization) with offending in adolescence or young adulthood (see Farrington et al. 2012, Table 6). A total number of 51 reports from 28 longitudinal studies were included in the systematic review on the association of school bullying (perpetration and victimization) with violence in adolescence or young adulthood (see Ttofi et al. 2012, Table 1).

When different manuscripts relating to the same longitudinal study reported different effect sizes (because of differences, e.g., in the sample size or in the follow-up period that the authors have used), the combination of effect sizes across reports is not straightforward as these effect sizes are based on dependent samples. These dependencies were taken into account, as ignoring them would result in standard errors that were too small, often by a large degree. Advice from leading experts in the field was sought on this matter (Wilson 2010). Clear rules were set in advance for computing effect sizes across reports from the same longitudinal study (see Farrington et al. 2012; Ttofi et al. 2012).

Bullying Perpetration At School And Offending Later In Life

Eighteen studies provided an effect size for bullying perpetration versus offending. The summary unadjusted effect size across the 18 studies was OR = 2.64 (95 % CI: 2.17–3.20; z = 9.83) for the random-effects model. The random-effects model was used since the heterogeneity test, Q, of 84.89 was highly significant at p = 0.0001. When the three studies with only unadjusted effect sizes were excluded, the summary effect size for the remaining 15 studies – for the random-effects model – was O= 2.54 (95 % CI: 2.05–3.14, z=8.52). Again, there was significant variability in effect sizes across these studies (Q =76.03, p ¼ 0.0001).

After controlling for covariates, the adjusted summary effect size was reduced to OR=1.89 (95 % CI: 1.60–2.23; z =7.49) but this was still highly significant (see Farrington et al. 2012; Figs. 3 and 4). This OR indicates quite a strong relationship between bullying perpetration and later offending. For example, if a quarter of children were bullies and a quarter were offenders, this value of the OR would correspond to 34.5 % of bullies becoming offenders, compared with 21.8 % of non-bullies. Thus, being a bully increases the risk of being an offender (even after controlling for other childhood risk factors) by more than half.

For the adjusted summary effect size, various moderators were investigated to explain the heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies, which was significant (Q= 36.82, p=0.001). These included the number of covariates controlled for at baseline (range: 1–20; M= 7.00; SD=5.22), the age at which school bullying was measured (range: 6.23–15.54; M =11.26; SD=2.68), the age of participants when outcome measures were taken (range: 10.00–24.64; M = 17.10; SD = 4.91), and the length of the follow-up period, measured in years (range: 0.42–16.50; M = 5.84; SD = 4.56).

The age at which bullying was measured was positively associated with the effect size, but the regression coefficient was not statistically significant (B = 0.019, SE = 0.024, p= 0.428). The length of the follow-up period was significantly negatively associated with the effect size (B =- 0.027, SE = 0.012, p = 0.018). As expected, the age of the study participants when outcome measures were taken was significantly negatively related to the effect size (B = -0.025, SE = 0.012, p = 0.039). The above two negative relationships suggest that bullying perpetration has a stronger effect in the short term. The relationship between the number of covariates controlled for and the effect size was in the expected negative direction and also significant (B = – 0.027, SE = 0.013, p = 0.037). Therefore, the adjusted effect size decreased as the number of covariates controlled for increased.

Other moderators that may explain variability in effect sizes include the type of longitudinal studies (i.e., prospective versus retrospective) and the way in which the outcomes were measured (i.e., official data versus self-reports). In the Farrington et al. (2012) report, the reader can obtain information about these moderators (see their Table 6). Only three studies out of fifteen presented outcome measures based on official records for offending, making a moderator analysis inappropriate (due to uneven study numbers). Finally, only one study presented results based on a retrospective measure of bullying victimization, so any analyses on this matter would be meaningless.

If the studies included in a meta-analysis are a biased sample of all relevant studies, then the mean effect computed will reflect this bias (Borenstein et al. 2009, p. 277). It is clear from our thorough searching strategies that every precaution was taken to ensure that all eligible studies would be represented in the meta-analysis. In order to further increase the validity of the meta-analysis findings, a number of publication bias analyses were carried out.

Firstly, the Duval and Tweedie’s Trim-andFill procedure was used. This technique displays the differences in effect sizes that could be attributable to bias by imputing effect sizes until the error distribution more closely approximates normality, offering the best estimate of the unbiased effect size (Borenstein et al. 2009, p. 286). No imputed effect sizes appeared on the relevant funnel plot (they would have been presented as solid black dots; see Farrington et al. 2012, Fig. 6), indicating no publication bias. The imputed summary effect size (represented by a solid black diamond) had not shifted at all.

Indeed, under the fixed effect model, the point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for the combined studies was 1.86 (95 % CI: 1.71–2.03). Using Trim-and-Fill procedure, these values remained unchanged. Under the random-effects model, the point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for the combined studies was 1.89 (95 % CI: 1.60–2.23). Using Trim-and-Fill procedure, these values were again unchanged.

Furthermore, Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe N test (Rosenthal 1979) was conducted. One concern of publication bias is that some nonsignificant studies are missing from a given analysis and that these studies, if included, would nullify the observed effect. Rosenthal suggested that, rather than simply speculate about the impact of the missing studies, we compute the number of nonsignificant studies that would be required to nullify the effect. If this number is small, then there is reason for concern because some nonsignificant studies may have been never communicated to the scientific community (e.g., due to “publication bias”). However, if this number is large, one can be confident that the treatment effect, while possibly inflated by the exclusion of some studies, is nevertheless not zero.

Bullying Perpetration At School And Violence Later In Life

A total number of 15 studies were concerned with the association of bullying perpetration with aggression and violence later in life. The unadjusted summary effect size across these studies was OR = 3.09 (95 % CI: 2.35–4.07; z = 8.10). For one study, only an unadjusted effect size was available. The unadjusted effect size for the remaining 14 studies was OR = 2.97 (95 % CI: 2.25–3.92; z = 7.71; Q = 151.81, p =0.0001; I2 = 91.44). All individual studies yielded a significant effect size (see Ttofi et al. 2012, Fig. 1). After controlling for covariates, the adjusted summary effect size was reduced to OR = 2.04 (95 % CI: 1.69–2.45; z = 7.53) but this was still highly significant (see Ttofi et al. 2012, Fig. 2). This OR indicates quite a strong relationship between bullying perpetration and later violence. For example, if a quarter of children were bullies and a quarter were violent, this value of OR would correspond to 35.8 % of bullies becoming violent, compared with 21.4 % of non-bullies. Thus, being a bully increases the risk of being violent (even after controlling for other childhood risk factors) by two thirds.

Although all individual studies yielded an effect size supporting the link between school bullying and aggression/violence later in life, the magnitude and the significance of the effect varied across these studies. Various moderator analyses were conducted in order to explain this variability (Q = 75.801, p = 0.0001, I2 = 82.85). These included the number of covariates controlled for at baseline (range: 2–20; M = 6.93; SD = 5.25), the age at which school bullying was measured (range: 8.00–15.54; M = 12.04; SD = 2.35), the age of participants when outcome measures were taken (range: 10.00–24.64; M = 17.65; SD = 4.83), and the length of the follow-up period, measured in years (range: 0.42–16.50; M = 5.61; SD = 4.88).

The age of participants when bullying was measured was significantly negatively correlated with the effect size (B = 0.065; SE = 0.021; p=0.002), suggesting that the younger the children were when they exhibited this form of problem behavior, the more likely it was that they would be violent later in life. The age of participants when outcome measures were taken was also significantly negatively related to the effect size (B = – 0.033; SE = 0.009; p = 0.0005). In other words, the lower the age of the participants when aggression or violence was measured, the larger the effect, possibly because this was associated with a shorter follow-up period. This is consistent with the significant negative association between the length of follow-up period and the magnitude of the effect size (B = – 0.017; SE = 0.009; p = 0.051). As expected, the magnitude of the effect size decreased as the number of confounds controlled for increased (B = – 0.013; Intercept = 0.668; SE = 0.010; p = 0.185), but the relevant regression coefficient was not significant.

As with the previous meta-analysis, a number of sensitivity analyses were conducted. Firstly, the Duval and Tweedie’s Trim-and-Fill procedure was performed. Three imputed effect sizes appeared on the relevant funnel plot (see Ttofi et al. 2012, Fig. 3) and the imputed summary effect size (represented by a solid black diamond) had shifted slightly, suggesting a trivial overestimation of the summary effect size.

As already mentioned, the difference was very small. Under the fixed effect model, the point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for the combined studies was 1.83 (95 % CI: 1.71–1.95). Using Trim-and-Fill procedure, the imputed point estimate was 1.76 (95% CI: 1.65–1.88). Under the random-effects model, the point estimate and 95 % confidence interval for the combined studies was 2.04 (95% CI: 1.69–2.45). Using Trim-and-Fill procedure, the imputed point estimate was 1.77 (95 % CI: 1.45–2.16).

Finally, the Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe N test was performed. This meta-analysis incorporated data from 14 studies, which yielded a z-value of 17.12216 and corresponding 2-tailed p-value of 0.000001. The fail-safe N is 1055. This means that one would need to locate and include 1055 “null” studies in order for the combined 2-tailed p-value to exceed 0.050. Put another way, 75.4 missing studies would be needed for every observed study for the effect to be nullified. It is impossible that such a large number of studies were conducted but not published or not included in our analysis.

Further Findings

Further analyses were performed to examine the association of bullying victimization with later offending before (Unadjusted OR =1.32; 95 % CI: 1.13–1.55, z = 3.40) and after controlling for other major childhood risk factors (Adjusted OR = 1.14; 95 % CI: 0.997–1.310, z=1.91) and relevant forest plots are shown in the Farrington et al. (2012) report (see Figs. 11 and 12). This was a very weak relationship. Moderator analyses and publication bias analyses similar to those presented in the current entry were also presented in that report.

Finally, analyses were performed to examine the association of bullying victimization with later violence before (Unadjusted OR = 1.65; 95 % CI: 1.42–1.92; z = 6.48) and after (Adjusted OR = 1.42; 95 % CI: 1.248–1.6172; z = 5.3117) controlling for covariates (see Ttofi et al. 2012, Figs. 4 and 5). Again, moderator analyses and publication bias analyses similar to those presented in the current entry are also presented in that report.

Sensitivity analyses were performed for these two sets of meta-analyses and the results showed in general no evidence of publication bias (see Farrington et al. 2012; Ttofi et al. 2012).

Possible Controversies In The Literature

The results of these systematic reviews and meta-analyses suggest that there are long-term detrimental effects of school bullying on later offending and violence. This was even the case when confounded variables that are risk factors for bullying or victimization as well as the undesirable outcomes were controlled for. Therefore, one can conclude that school bullying is an independent predictor of the later psychosocial development of perpetrators as well as of victims. It is the first time that this conclusion is not only based on a few selected primary studies and narrative reviews, but, instead, on comprehensive meta-analyses of prospective longitudinal studies that included new data from a substantial body of yet unpublished research. The findings remained robust in sensitivity analyses testing potential publication biases, of which there was no sign.

The relation of bullying perpetration with later offending and violence might reflect the persistence of an underlying disposition for antisocial behavior that has different manifestations over time (Farrington 1993; Lo¨ sel and Bliesener 2003). However, as the relation remained after controlling for other childhood risk factors, bullying perpetration may also increase the likelihood of later offending and violence.

Of course, one should acknowledge that any direct mention of causality should be carefully treated. Although most studies use bullying as the predictor of later outcomes, implying in this way a specific temporal sequence, alternative models have been suggested. Very few bullying studies have examined alternative models on whether bullying is a cause or a consequence of psychopathologic behavior (e.g., Boulton et al. 2010; Kim et al. 2006). This is not a trivial matter and it would shed more light on the temporal sequence and the causal ordering between bullying and other internalizing or externalizing behaviors. The substantial adjusted effect size for victimization versus later depression found in a previous meta-analysis (Farrington et al. 2012; Ttofi et al. 2011b), for example, suggests in a way that the frequent internalizing symptoms of victims are not only a trigger for being bullied, but a psychological consequence.

Systematic reviews on risk factors are important as they can advance theory and also help to develop effective prevention programs (Murray et al. 2009). For example, it would be interesting to examine whether victims of bullying suffer from low self-esteem or whether school bullies lack cognitive or affective empathy. Such findings, based on relevant systematic reviews, could guide future intervention initiatives, while also refining theory about the causes of bullying perpetration and victimization.

Open Questions And Future Research Directions

In the current meta-analysis, studies were included and analyzed based on “level analyses.” Levels of bullying perpetration were compared with later levels of offending and violence. It would also have been interesting to complete a systematic review on “change analyses,” examining whether changes in bullying from Time 1 to Time 2 are followed by changes in an outcome from Time 2 to Time 3. However, there are hardly any studies on this matter, since such analyses would require relevant data from multiple waves. Such analyses would allow, to an extent, making safer inferences about causality, although change data are subject to greater variability than level data. Systematic reviews of longitudinal studies which control for confounded variables can give some hints on whether variables are simple correlational risk factors, risk markers, or causal risk factors (Kraemer et al. 2005).

Future research should also examine possible gender-specific and ethnic-specific effects of bullying on later violent behavior and offending. Such information was hardly ever available in the current literature. To investigate and disentangle the impact of these and other variables on the relation between bullying and later outcomes, more longitudinal studies with a sound control for childhood risk factors are needed. The results of meta-regression analyses were not always as expected in the meta-analyses for the British Academy project on “Health and Criminal Outcomes of School Bullying” because of the large differences in the type of covariates researchers controlled for. However, one should note that the lack of a sufficient number of studies with consistent patterns of characteristics is a typical problem in meta-analyses (Lipsey 2003).

Future research should also examine mediators or possible causal mechanisms between school bullying and the various outcomes. The underlying mechanisms, for example, may be the reinforcement obtained by dominating others and the development of an identity as a “bully” that goes beyond the school context.

Conclusions

This is the first time that research has provided an unbiased standardized effect size regarding the predictive efficiency of school bullying in relation to violence and offending later in life. The significant summary effect sizes have important implications for policy and practice as they give a stronger voice to anti-bullying agencies and reestablish the moral imperative of school communities to create an appropriate violence-free school climate.

High quality bullying prevention programs should be promoted (Farrington and Ttofi 2009; Ttofi and Farrington 2011). They could be viewed as an early form of crime prevention. These programs can potentially have long-term effects by improving the future psychosocial adjustment of school bullies and reducing the associated health, welfare, education, and other costs. The effectiveness of other school-based programs for the prevention of problem behaviors has been examined through thorough systematic reviews (e.g., Wilson et al. 2001) and it is possible that such programs, or other general multicomponent programs, might have positive effects in reducing aggression and bullying behavior.

Previous research has provided strong evidence about the monetary value of saving high-risk youth (Cohen and Piquero 2009). Children involved in school bullying are undoubtedly youth at risk, with significantly higher probabilities of following an antisocial path. What remains unanswered is the identification of protective factors that interrupt the continuity from school bullying to later adverse outcomes and confer resiliency on this special category of high-risk youth (Ttofi and Farrington 2012).

Bibliography:

• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Julian PTH, Rothstein HR (2009) Introduction to meta-analysis. Willey, Chichester
• Boulton MJ, Smith PK, Cowie H (2010) Short-term longitudinal relationships between children’s peer victimization/bullying experiences and self-perceptions: evidence for reciprocity. School Psychol Int 31(3):296–311
• Cohen MA, Piquero AR (2009) New evidence on the monetary value of saving a high risk youth. J Quant Criminol 25:25–49
• Farrington DP (1993) Understanding and preventing bullying. In: Tonry M (ed) Crime and justice, vol 17. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
• Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2009) School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews 6
• Farrington DP, Ttofi MM, Losel F (2011) Editorial: school bullying and later offending. Crim Behav Mental Health 21(2):77–79
• Farrington DP, Losel F, Ttofi MM, Theodorakis N (2012) School bullying, depression and offending behaviour later in life: an updated systematic review of longitudinal studies. Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Stockholm
• Kim YS, Leventhal BL, Koh Y-J, Hubbard A, Boyce TW (2006) School bullying and youth violence: causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Arch Gen Psychiat 63:1035–1041
• Kraemer HC, Lowe KK, Kupfer DJ (2005) To your health: how to understand what research tells us about risks. Oxford University Press, New York
• Lipsey MW (2003) Those confounded moderators in meta-analysis: good, bad, and ugly. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 587(1):69–81
• Losel F, Bliesener T (2003) Aggression und delinquenz unter jugendlichen: Untersuchungen von kognitiven und sozialen Bedingunger. Luchterhand, Hermann
• Murray J, Farrington DP, Eisner MP (2009) Drawing conclusions about causes from systematic reviews of risk factors: the Cambridge quality checklists. J Exp Criminol 5(1):1–23
• Olweus D (1993) Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do. Blackwell, Oxford
• Rosenthal R (1979) The “File drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin 86:638– 641.
• Smith PK, Brain P (2000) Bullying in schools: lessons from two decates of research. Aggressive Behavior 26:1–9
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2011) Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review. J Exp Criminol 7(1):27–56
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2012) Risk and protective factors, longitudinal research and bullying prevention. New Direct Youth Develop 133:85–98
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F (2011a) Editorial: health consequences of school bullying. J Aggress Conflict Peace Res 3(2):60–62
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F, Loeber R (2011b) Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Aggress Conflict Peace Res 3(2):63–73
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F, Loeber R (2011c) The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Crim Behav Mental Health 21(2):80–89
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F (2012) School bullying as a risk marker for aggression and violence later in life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior (Accepted, in press)
• Wilson DB, Gottfredson DC, Najaka SS (2001) School-based prevention of problem behaviors: a meta-analysis. J Quant Criminol 17(3):247–272

More Bullying Research Paper Examples:

• Bullying Prevention Research Paper
• Bullying in School Research Paper

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER