bullying in schools cause and effect essay

School Bullying: Causes and Effects

Bullying has become one of the most urgent problems in modern society. It comes from different sources and affects victims’ psychological state and quality of life. In this essay, we analyze the causes of bullying in school, its effects on victims, and mitigation measures that should be taken.

Cause and Effect of Bullying: Essay Introduction

Cause of bullying in school, bullying causes and effects: mitigation measures, works cited.

Bullying is one of the main challenges children face at school. It is a global problem that is currently affecting many youth. The rate at which bullying cases are reported causes many worries to parents. The issue is severe to the extent that many children have learned to live with it, and some have created the notion that bullying is part of their life in the early years of their development. Several cases, especially in the United States and Japan, have been reported about children’s humiliation, mistreatment, physical attacks, and even rape cases of young female learners.

The effects of bullying on a child can be very traumatizing if not carefully addressed. These effects sometimes are long-lasting and can provoke the victim to take dangerous measures to forget the incidents. According to Rigby (64), bullying experiences can cost the lives of the victims if not prevented in time. In New York, it is reported that a young immigrant killed herself due to excessive bullying. This researcher argues that it is high time for the issue of bullying in schools to be addressed. The notion that bullying is a rite of passage should be eliminated. This research paper aims to explore the causes, effects, and possible solutions to bullying in schools.

According to Olweus (34), many reasons lead to bullying in schools. One of the main causes is the cultural factor. This includes race and ethnicity. A child may be a bully or a victim if he or she comes from a majority or minority race, respectively. Another cause of bullying in schools is the nature of life a child is exposed to. In many families in developed countries, children can comfortably watch TV even in their bedrooms. Instead of studying, such children spend their time playing computer games. Their games make them bullies because they see others practice the same.

According to Tattumand Lane (27), high expectations of parents of their children contribute to bullying. The reason is that a child will spend much time studying to perform well and meet the parents’ expectations. Failure to achieve the target may develop stress in a child, and they will express anger through shouting or bullying fellow learners. Another cause of bullying in schools emanates from the family’s social status. A child from a humble background will always have some pressurizing needs that are not met. This child will always want to express this frustration to fellow learners, especially those from stable families, by bullying them.

The effects of bullying, as mentioned above, can be very traumatizing. Victims of bullying may opt to drop out of school because of the trauma they experience. Others may develop irresponsible behavior that involves missing classes on most occasions. School irregularities among the learners result in poor performance. Bullying leads to stress among the victims. This, in turn, results in poor communication with these children. McGrath (44) argues that, in some cases, excessive bullying can lead to victims committing suicide to escape from painful experiences and memories.

Some of the effects are short-term, but if not well addressed, they can result in serious complications. The victims may have bed-wetting problems, unexplained worries, and digestive problems because of the fear instilled in them. Some victims with the intention of hitting back may develop very destructive behavior. Other victims may end up engaging in drug abuse to make them forget their painful experiences. Bullying affects the normal development of victims and makes them have low self-esteem (Dupper 62). 

Mitigating bullying in schools is not a one-person battle. Since it is a global issue, it calls for a collaborative and participatory approach to addressing the problem. Teachers, parents, and policymakers have a significant role in curbing this bad behavior in schools. Teachers spend much of their time with the learners and, therefore, can easily control their behavior while in school. They should be tough and keen to identify the bullies and expel or suspend them from school to avoid spreading such behaviors among other learners. School administrators should seriously punish the physically strong learners who take advantage of the weak ones by mistreating them. The administration should not tolerate any sign of bullying within the school (Tattum&Lane 53). 

Parents should also be strict with their children and avoid anything that may turn them into bullies. Watching TV and playing computer games must be regulated at home. The child should be seriously punished if he or she shows some bullying behavior while at home. The government also has an essential role in curbing this vice. Policymakers must enact policies that address bullying in schools. These policies should be implemented and strictly adhered to, and whoever violates them should face the law irrespective of age. All the stakeholders, including the humanitarian non-governmental organizations, must join hands to curb this vice in society. Through this collaborative approach, success will be achieved.

Dupper, David. School Bullying: New Perspectives on a Growing Problem . New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.

McGrath, Mary. School Bullying: Tools for Avoiding Harm and Liability . Thousand Oaks, Calif: Corwin Press, 2007. Print.

Olweus, Dan. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do . Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1993. Print.

Rigby, Ken. Bullying in Schools and What to Do About It . Melbourne, Vic: ACER, 2007. Print.

Tattum, Delwyn, and David Lane. Bullying in Schools . Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham, 1988. Print.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, November 7). School Bullying: Causes and Effects. https://studycorgi.com/school-bullying-causes-and-effects/

"School Bullying: Causes and Effects." StudyCorgi , 7 Nov. 2020, studycorgi.com/school-bullying-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'School Bullying: Causes and Effects'. 7 November.

1. StudyCorgi . "School Bullying: Causes and Effects." November 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/school-bullying-causes-and-effects/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "School Bullying: Causes and Effects." November 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/school-bullying-causes-and-effects/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "School Bullying: Causes and Effects." November 7, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/school-bullying-causes-and-effects/.

This paper, “School Bullying: Causes and Effects”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: November 8, 2023 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

The Broad Impact of School Bullying, and What Must Be Done

Major interventions are required to make schools safe learning environments..

Posted May 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Hara Estroff Marano

• How to Handle Bullying
• Find a therapist to support kids or teens
• At least one in five kids is bullied, and a significant percentage are bullies. Both are negatively affected, as are bystanders.
• Bullying is an epidemic that is not showing signs of improvement.
• Evidence-based bullying prevention programs can be effective, but school adoption is inconsistent.

According to the U.S. federal government website StopBullying.gov :

There is no federal law that specifically applies to bullying . In some cases, when bullying is based on race or ethnicity , color, national origin, sex, disability, or religion, bullying overlaps with harassment and schools are legally obligated to address it.

The National Bullying Prevention Center reports data suggesting that one in five children have been bullied. There are many risk factors for being targeted, including being seen as weak, being different from peers including being LGBT or having learning differences or visible disabilities, being depressed or anxious, and having few friends. It's hard to measure how many engage in bullying, but estimates range from one in twenty, to much higher .

The American Association of University Women reports that in grades 7-12, 48 percent of students (56 percent of girls and 40 percent of boys) are sexually harassed. In college, rates of sexual harassment rise to 66 percent. Eleven percent are raped or sexually assaulted.

Silence facilitates traumatization

Only 20 percent of attacked young women report sexual assault . And 89 percent of undergraduate schools report zero sexual harassment. This means that children, adolescents, young adults and their friends are at high risk for being victimized. It means that many kids know what is happening, and don't do anything.

This may be from fear of retaliation and socialization into a trauma-permissive culture, and it may be from lack of proper education and training. Institutional betrayal , when organizations fail to uphold their promises and responsibilities, adds to the problem.

In some states such as New York, laws like “ the Dignity for All Students Act ” (DASA) apply only to public schools. Private, religious, and denominational schools are not included, leaving 20 percent of students in NYC and 10 percent throughout the state unprotected. Research shows that over the last decade, bullying in U.S. high schools has held steady around 20 percent, and 15 percent for cyberbullying.

The impact of bullying

While there is much research on how bullying affects mental health, social function, and academics, the results are scattered across dozens of papers. A recent paper in the Journal of School Violence (Halliday et al., 2021) presents a needed systematic literature review on bullying’s impact in children aged 10-18.

1. Psychological: Being a victim of bullying was associated with increased depression , anxiety , and psychosis . Victims of bullying reported more suicidal thinking and engaged in greater self-harming behaviors. They were more likely to experience social anxiety , body-image issues, and negative conduct. Simultaneous cyberbullying and conventional bullying were associated with more severe depression.

2. Social: Bullying victims reported greater problems in relationships with family, friends and in day-to-day social interactions. They reported they enjoyed time with family and friends less, felt they were being treated unfairly more easily, and liked less where they lived. Victimized children were less popular and likeable, and experienced more social rejection. They tended to be friends with other victims, potentially heightening problems while also providing social support.

3. Academic achievement: Victimized kids on average had lower grades. Over time, they did worse especially in math. They tended to be more proficient readers, perhaps as a result of turning to books for comfort in isolation (something people with a history of being bullied commonly report in therapy ).

4. School attitudes: Bullied children and adolescents were less engaged in education, had poorer attendance, felt less belonging, and felt more negatively about school.

5. What happens with age? Researchers studied adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying, looking at both victims and bullies, reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Psychiatry (Copeland et al., 2013). After controlling for other childhood hardships, researchers found that young adults experience increased rates of agoraphobia (fear of leaving the house), generalized anxiety, panic disorder, and increased depression risk. Men had higher suicide risk.

The impact of bullying does not stop in early adulthood. Research in the Journals of Gerontology (Hu, 2021) found that people over the age of 60 who were bullied as children had more severe depression and had lower life satisfaction.

6. Bullying and the brain: Work reported in Frontiers in Psychiatry (Muetzel et al., 2019) found that victims of bullying had thickening of the fusiform gyrus, an area of the cerebral cortex involved with facial recognition, and sensing emotions from facial expressions. 1 For those with posttraumatic stress disorder, brain changes may be extensive.

7. Bystanders are affected: Research also shows that bystanders have higher rates of anxiety and depression (Midgett et al., 2019). The problem is magnified for bystanders who are also victims. It is likely that taking appropriate action is protective.

Given that victims of bullying are at risk for posttraumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ; Idsoe et al., 2012), it’s important to understand that many of the reported psychiatric findings may be better explained by PTSD than as a handful of overlapping but separate diagnoses. Trauma often goes unrecognized.

What can be done?

The psychosocial and academic costs of unmitigated bullying are astronomical, to say nothing of the considerable economic cost. Change is needed, but resistance to change, as with racism, gender bias, and other forms of discrimination , is built into how we see things.

Legislation: There is no federal antibullying legislation, and state laws may be weak and inconsistently applied. Given that bullying rates are no longer falling, it’s important for lawmakers and advocates to seek immediate changes.

Bullying prevention: Schools can adopt antibullying programs, though they are not universally effective and sometimes may backfire. Overall, however, research in JAMA Pediatrics (Fraguas et al., 2021) shows that antibullying programs reduce bullying, improve mental health outcomes, and stay effective over time. 2

Trauma-informed education creates an environment in which all participants are aware of the impact of childhood trauma and the need for specific modifications given how trauma is common among children and how it affects development.

According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network (NCTSN):

"The primary mission of schools is to support students in educational achievement. To reach this goal, children must feel safe, supported, and ready to learn. Children exposed to violence and trauma may not feel safe or ready to learn. Not only are individual children affected by traumatic experiences, but other students, the adults on campus, and the school community can be impacted by interacting or working with a child who has experienced trauma. Thus, as schools maintain their critical focus on education and achievement, they must also acknowledge that mental health and wellness are innately connected to students’ success in the classroom and to a thriving school environment."

Parenting makes a difference. Certain parenting styles may set kids up for emotional abuse in relationships , while others may be protective. A 2019 study reported in Frontiers in Public Health (Plexousakis et al.) found that children with anxious, overprotective mothers were more likely to be victims.

Those with cold or detached mothers were more likely to become bullies. Overprotective fathering was associated with worse PTSD symptoms, likely by getting in the way of socialization. The children of overprotective fathers were also more likely to be aggressive.

Quality parental bonding, however, appeared to help protect children from PTSD symptoms. A healthy home environment is essential both for helping victims of bullying and preventing bullying in at-risk children.

Parents who recognize the need to learn more positive approaches can help buffer again the all-too-common cycle of passing trauma from generation to generation, building resilience and nurturing secure attachment to enjoy better family experiences and equip children to thrive.

State-by-state legislation

Bullying prevention programs (the KiVA program is also notable)

Measuring Bullying Victimization, Perpetration and Bystander Experiences , Centers for Disease Control

Trauma-informed teaching

US Government Stop Bullying

1. Such differences could both result from being bullied (e.g. needing to scan faces for threat) and could also make being bullied more likely (e.g. misreading social cues leading to increased risk of being targeted).

2. Such programs focus on reducing negative messaging in order to keep stakeholders engaged, monitor and respond quickly to bullying, involve students in bullying prevention and detection in positive ways (e.g. being an “upstander” instead of a bystander), monitor more closely for bullying when the risk is higher (e.g. after anti-bullying trainings), respond fairly with the understanding that bullies often have problems of their own and need help, involved parents and teachers in anti-bullying education, and devote specific resources for anti-bullying.

Sarah Halliday, Tess Gregory, Amanda Taylor, Christianna Digenis & Deborah Turnbull (2021): The Impact of Bullying Victimization in Early Adolescence on Subsequent Psychosocial and Academic Outcomes across the Adolescent Period: A Systematic Review, Journal of School Violence, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2021.1913598

Copeland WE, Wolke D, Angold A, Costello EJ. Adult Psychiatric Outcomes of Bullying and Being Bullied by Peers in Childhood and Adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70(4):419–426. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504

Bo Hu, PhD, Is Bullying Victimization in Childhood Associated With Mental Health in Old Age, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, Volume 76, Issue 1, January 2021, Pages 161–172, https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbz115

Muetzel RL, Mulder RH, Lamballais S, Cortes Hidalgo AP, Jansen P, Güroğlu B, Vernooiji MW, Hillegers M, White T, El Marroun H and Tiemeier H (2019) Frequent Bullying Involvement and Brain Morphology in Children. Front. Psychiatry 10:696. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00696

Midgett, A., Doumas, D.M. Witnessing Bullying at School: The Association Between Being a Bystander and Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms. School Mental Health 11, 454–463 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09312-6

Idsoe, T., Dyregrov, A. & Idsoe, E.C. Bullying and PTSD Symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol 40, 901–911 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9620-0

Fraguas D, Díaz-Caneja CM, Ayora M, Durán-Cutilla M, Abregú-Crespo R, Ezquiaga-Bravo I, Martín-Babarro J, Arango C. Assessment of School Anti-Bullying Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Jan 1;175(1):44-55. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3541. PMID: 33136156; PMCID: PMC7607493.

Plexousakis SS, Kourkoutas E, Giovazolias T, Chatira K and Nikolopoulos D (2019) School Bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms: The Role of Parental Bonding. Front. Public Health 7:75. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00075

Note: An ExperiMentations Blog Post ("Our Blog Post") is not intended to be a substitute for professional advice. We will not be liable for any loss or damage caused by your reliance on information obtained through Our Blog Post. Please seek the advice of professionals, as appropriate, regarding the evaluation of any specific information, opinion, advice, or other content. We are not responsible and will not be held liable for third-party comments on Our Blog Post. Any user comment on Our Blog Post that in our sole discretion restricts or inhibits any other user from using or enjoying Our Blog Post is prohibited and may be reported to Sussex Publishers/Psychology Today. Grant H. Brenner. All rights reserved.

Grant Hilary Brenner, M.D., a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, helps adults with mood and anxiety conditions, and works on many levels to help unleash their full capacities and live and love well.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Bullying in schools, what the police can do to prevent bullying in schools, community policing strategies, reference list.

Bullying is a form of scurrilous treatment which mainly entails emotional, physical or verbal harassment directed towards people of certain levels, gender, race and religion just to mention but a few. It mainly occurs when there is imbalance in power such that those deemed to be on the lower physical or social levels are bullied by those in the higher levels of power and social status.

Bullying can occur in many contexts especially where human beings interact with each other such as in the work places, learning institutions, family, churches among others. It is however more prone in schools as compared to the other areas. When bullying occurs, it causes oppression to the affected parties thus affecting their social life and studies in the case of students.

This paper is therefore an analysis of the possible causes and ways of preventing instances of bullying in schools by the police. Past and present approaches of addressing the issue of bullying in schools will further be discussed.

The problem of bullying in schools has been a major problem for many school going children and individuals. This is mainly because those who have undergone it or have seen fellow students in that situation will always have the fear of being in the same environment with the bullies.

As a matter of fact, recent research has shown that the instances of bullying in schools have been on the rise. This has been caused by the absence of ethos making some of the students or rather the bullies to obtain aggressive behavior to bully others.

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 be in.

The fact that bullying in schools is very detrimental to the growth and psychological effects of most school going children leading to instances of depression, low self-esteem and in some cases suicide makes it require immediate causes of action to prevent it.

If this vice is left untreated, the school bullies end up being the societal criminals. School bullying has been identified to result into other antisocial behaviors such as shop lifting, drug and alcohol addicts, vandalism just to mention but a few. It therefore because of this reason that the police force comes in to prevent this act before it develops into more serious crimes.

To begin with is the enactment of the School Bullying Prevention Act which states regulates the control and discipline of school children thus prohibiting them from any form of harassment, bullying or intimidation in the school environment. Through the guidance of this policy, the police are therefore in a position to act in accordance to its provisions thus making any offender punishable under the law.

The police force can prevent instances of bullying in schools by visiting the nearby schools to give them presentation on bullying. This way, the students will understand the effects and consequences of bullying thus shun away from this practice.

Through the establishment of a good relationship with the school, the police force will educate the students on violent prevention and how they can deal with cases of bullying. This is to make sure that the students that nave been bullied report the matter to the authorities without fear since they are well informed of the measures to be taken. Through this information, the rate of bullying in schools will be reduced since the bullies will be aware of the impacts they could face after such acts.

A major obligation of the police force is that of provision of safety in the society. Therefore, the police force can use this as one way of dealing with bullying in schools. This is such that they ensure the school’s environment is very safe by making routine visits to the surrounding.

This will reduce bullying instances as the bullies usually use the hidden or the not-open ground to bully others. Thus in the instance that they are ware of police making visits in the school compound, they will deter from doing such acts for the fear of being caught.

Last but not least, the school’s administration should have direct hotline link with the police forces to ensure immediate response in case of bullying.

The problem of bullying in schools is not for a few but for everyone in the society. This is because the school children will at one point in time be members or leaders of the society. Therefore the community is no exception when it comes to dealing with the issue of bullying in schools. There are various community policy strategies that are applicable in stopping bullying in schools some of which include the following;

• Involving professionals, parents, volunteers and the youth in the fight against bullying in school- This entails involving different groups and categories of people to advice and guide the children on bullying effects and impacts. These people could include the counselors who will have counseling sessions in schools to educate the children on how to deal with the problem of bullying for those addicted to it or on how to report it for the victims of bullying. Parents also play a great role by raising their children in a disciplined manner. All the aforementioned groups of people can again come together and form ‘stop bullying in schools’ campaign.
• Raising community awareness; since bullying is often difficult at most times to understand, the community can raise awareness and inform people of how they can predict and recognize bullying. This will be through educating them on the signs of bullying and the consequent measures be taken.
• Assessing the strength and needs of the community- This entails finding out how the society perceives the bullying vice and measures that have been put in place to deal with it. This way, one will be in a good position to know the requirements of the community in terms of the issue of bullying in schools.

From the above discussion, it can be clearly seen that bullying is a bone of contention for many people. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of all ambers of the society to deal with the issue of bullying in schools and not to be left on the hands of the school administrators only. Despite the fact that bullying instances have been on the rise in the recent past, ideal measures have been put in place to deal with the issue unlike it was in the past years.

Carey, T. (2003) Improving the success of anti-bullying intervention programs: A tool for matching programs with purposes. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 23(2), 16-23

Whitted, K.and Dupper, D. (2005). Best Practices for Preventing or Reducing

Bullying in Schools. Children and Schools , Vol. 27, No. 3, July 2005, pp. 167-175(9).

• School Bullying: Case Analysis
• Bullying in the Schools
• “Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying” by Frisen et al.
• Critique of the Argument: Is the Cost of A College A Bargain?
• Maintaining Safety in the Primary School: The Importance of Duty of Care for Students
• Duty of Care Policy Explained
• Current Educational Issues
• Most Popular Educational Issues and Points to Improve It
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, March 20). School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/

"School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." IvyPanda , 20 Mar. 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention'. 20 March.

IvyPanda . 2019. "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

1. IvyPanda . "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." March 20, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

What you need to know about school violence and bullying

Bullying in schools deprives millions of children and young people of their fundamental right to education. A recent UNESCO report revealed that more than 30% of the world's students have been victims of bullying, with devastating consequences on academic achievement, school dropout, and physical and mental health.

The world is marking the first International Day against Violence and Bullying at School Including Cyberbullying , on 5 November. Here is what you need to know about school violence and bullying.

What is school violence?

School violence refers to all forms of violence that takes place in and around schools and is experienced by students and perpetrated by other students, teachers and other school staff. This includes bullying and cyberbullying. Bullying is one of the most pervasive forms of school violence, affecting 1 in 3 young people.

What forms may school violence take?

Based on existing international surveys that collect data on violence in schools, UNESCO recognizes the following forms of school violence:

• Physical violence, which is any form of physical aggression with intention to hurt perpetrated by peers, teachers or school staff.
• Psychological violence as verbal and emotional abuse, which includes any forms of isolating, rejecting, ignoring, insults, spreading rumors, making up lies, name-calling, ridicule, humiliation and threats, and psychological punishment.
• Sexual violence, which includes intimidation of a sexual nature, sexual harassment, unwanted touching, sexual coercion and rape, and it is perpetrated by a teacher, school staff or a schoolmate or classmate.
• Physical bullying, including hitting, kicking and the destruction of property;
• Psychological bullying, such as teasing, insulting and threatening; or relational, through the spreading of rumours and exclusion from a group; and
• Sexual bullying, such as making fun of a victim with sexual jokes, comments or gestures, which may be defined as sexual ‘harassment’ in some countries.
• Cyberbullying is a form of psychological or sexual bullying that takes place online. Examples of cyberbullying include posting or sending messages, pictures or videos, aimed at harassing, threatening or targeting another person via a variety of media and social media platforms. Cyberbullying may also include spreading rumours, posting false information, hurtful messages, embarrassing comments or photos, or excluding someone from online networks or other communications.

Who perpetrates school violence?

School violence is perpetrated by students, teachers and other school staff. However, available evidence shows that violence perpetrated by peers is the most common.

What are the main reasons why children are bullied?

All children can be bullied, yet evidence shows that children who are perceived to be “different” in any way are more at risk. Key factors include physical appearance, ethnic, linguistic or cultural background, gender, including not conforming to gender norms and stereotypes; social status and disability.

What are the consequences of school violence?

Educational consequences: Being bullied undermines the sense of belonging at school and affects continued engagement in education. Children who are frequently bullied are more likely to feel like an outsider at school, and more likely to want to leave school after finishing secondary education. Children who are bullied have lower academic achievements than those who are not frequently bullied.

Health consequences: Children’s mental health and well-being can be adversely impacted by bullying. Bullying is associated with higher rates of feeling lonely and suicidal, higher rates of smoking, alcohol and cannabis use and lower rates of self-reported life satisfaction and health. School violence can also cause physical injuries and harm.

What are the linkages between school violence and bullying, school-related gender-based violence and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression?

School violence may be perpetrated as a result of gender norms and stereotypes and enforced by unequal power dynamics and is therefore referred to as school-related gender-based violence. It includes, in particular, a specific type of gender-based violence that is linked to the actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity or expression of victims, including homophobic and transphobic bullying. School-related gender-based violence is a significant part of school violence that requires specific efforts to address.

Does school-related gender-based violence refer to sexual violence against girls only?         

No. School-related gender-based violence refers to all forms of school violence that is based on or driven by gender norms and stereotypes, which also includes violence against and between boys.

Is school violence always gender-based?           

There are many factors that drive school violence. Gender is one of the significant drivers of violence but not all school violence is based on gender. Moreover, international surveys do not systematically collect data on the gendered nature of school violence, nor on violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression. 

Based on the analysis of global data, there are no major differences in the prevalence of bullying for boys and girls. However, there are some differences between boys and girls in terms of the types of bullying they experience. Boys are much more exposed to physical bullying, and to physical violence in general, than girls. Girls are slightly more exposed to psychological bullying, particularly through cyberbullying. According to the same data, sexual bullying the same proportion of boys and girls. Data coming from different countries, however, shows that girls are increasingly exposed to sexual bullying online.

How does UNESCO help prevent and address school violence and bullying?

The best available evidence shows that responses to school violence and bullying that are effective should be comprehensive and include a combination of policies and interventions. Often this comprehensive response to school violence and bullying is referred to as a whole-school approach. Based on an extensive review of existing conceptual frameworks that describe that whole-school approach, UNESCO has identified nine key components of a response that goes beyond schools and could be better described as a whole-education system or whole-education approach.  These components are the following:

• Strong political leadership and robust legal and policy framework to address school violence and bullying;
• Training and support for teachers on school violence and bullying prevention and positive classroom management
• Curriculum, learning & teaching to promote, a caring (i.e. anti- school violence and bullying) school climate and students’ social and emotional skills
• A safe psychological and physical school and classroom environment
• Reporting mechanisms for students affected by school violence and bullying, together with support and referral services
• Involvement of all stakeholders in the school community including parents
• Student empowerment and participation
• Collaboration and partnerships between the education sector and a wide range of partners (other government sectors, NGOs, academia)
• Evidence: monitoring of school violence and bullying and evaluation of responses

More on UNESCO’s work to prevent and address school violence and bullying

Read UNESCO's publication Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying

Photo: Eakachai Leesin/Shutterstock.com

More on this subject

Event International Conference of the Memory of the World Programme, incorporating the 4th Global Policy Forum 28 October 2024 - 29 October 2024

Other recent articles

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

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

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

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

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

STUDY CHARGE

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

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

Historical Context

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

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

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

___________________

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

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

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

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

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

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

Definitional Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

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

Information Gathering

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank.

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

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

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

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

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

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Research Resources

Consequences of Bullying

It is important for parents and people who work with children and adolescents to understand that bullying can have both short- and long-term effects on everyone involved. While most research on bullying has been about children and adolescents who have been bullied, those who bully others are also negatively impacted, as are those who are both bullied and bully others, and even those who are not directly involved but witness bullying.

Children Who Have Been Bullied

Research has found that children and adolescents who have been bullied can experience negative psychological, physical, and academic effects.

Psychological Effects

The psychological effects of bullying include depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, self-harming behavior (especially for girls), alcohol and drug use and dependence, aggression, and involvement in violence or crime (especially for boys). While bullying can lead to mental health problems for any child, those who already have mental health difficulties are even more likely to be bullied and to experience its negative effects.

Cyberbullying – bullying that happens with computers or mobile devices – has also been linked to mental health problems. Compared with peers who were not cyberbullied, children who were cyberbullied report higher levels of depression and thoughts of suicide, as well as greater emotional distress, hostility, and delinquency.

Physical Effects

Bullying and Suicide

Bullying is a risk factor for depression and thinking about suicide. Children who bully others, are bullied, or both bully and are bullied are more likely to think about or attempt suicide than those who are not involved in bullying at all.

The physical effects of bullying can be obvious and immediate, such as being injured from a physical attack. However, the ongoing stress and trauma of being bullied can also lead to physical problems over time. A child who is bullied could develop sleep disorders - such as difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep - stomachaches, headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, bedwetting, and chronic pain and somatization (i.e., a syndrome of distressful, physical symptoms that cannot be explained by a medical cause).

Being bullied also increases cortisol levels – a stress hormone – in the body, which typically happens after a stressful event. Stress from bullying can impact the immune system and hormones. Imaging studies show that brain activity and functioning can be affected by bullying, which may help explain the behavior of children who have been bullied.

Academic Effects

Research has consistently shown that bullying can have a negative impact on how well children and adolescents do in school. It has a negative impact on both grades and standardized test scores starting as early as kindergarten and continuing through high school.

Children Who Bully and Those Who Witness Bullying

Very little research has been done to understand the effects of bullying on children who bully, and those who witness bullying (e.g., bystanders). More research is needed to understand the consequences of bullying on the individuals who bully others, particularly to understand the differences between those who are generally aggressive and those who bully others.

Studies of children who witness bullying usually focus on their role in the bullying situation (e.g., if they backed up the child who bullied, or defended the victim) and why they did or did not intervene. While studies rarely assess the effects of bullying exposure on the witness, some research has found that bullying witnesses experience anxiety and insecurity based on their own fears of retaliation.

Children Who Bully and Are Also Bullied

Children and adolescents who bully others and who are also bullied are at the greatest risk for negative mental and physical health consequences, compared to those who only bully or are only being bullied. These children and adolescents may experience a combination of psychological problems, a negative perception of themselves and others, poor social skills, conduct problems, and rejection by their peer group.

Compared with non-involved peers, those who have bullied others and have also been bullied have been found to be at increased risk for serious mental illness, be at high risk for thinking about and attempting suicide, and demonstrate heightened aggression.

Exposure to bullying in any manner – by being bullied, bullying others, or witnessing peers being bullied – has long-term, negative effects on children. The School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey found that in 2015, about 21 percent of students ages 12-18 reported being bullied at school during the school year. Given the prevalence of youth exposed to bullying across the nation, it is important to understand the consequences of bullying on children and adolescents, how it relates to other violent behaviors and mental health challenges, in order to effectively address them.

Download PDF

Source and Research Limitations

The information discussed in this fact sheet is based on the comprehensive review of bullying research presented in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s report entitled Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice .

This report includes the most up to date research on bullying, but it is important to note that this research has several important limitations. Most of the research is cross-sectional, which means it took place at one point in time. This type of research shows us what things are related to each other at that time, but cannot tell us which thing came first or if one of those things caused the other to occur.

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
• Rev Lat Am Enfermagem
• v.23(2); Feb-Apr 2015

The causes of bullying: results from the National Survey of School Health (PeNSE)

Wanderlei abadio de oliveira.

1 Doctoral student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Marta Angélica Iossi Silva

2 PhD, Associate Professor, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Flávia Carvalho Malta de Mello

Denise lopes porto.

3 MSc, Statistician, Coordenação Geral de Informações e Análise Epidemiológica, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Brasília, DF, Brazil

Andréa Cristina Mariano Yoshinaga

4 Master´s student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

Deborah Carvalho Malta

5 PhD, Adjunct Professor, Escola de Enfermagem, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Director, Departamento de Vigilância de Doenças e Agravos não Transmissíveis e Promoção da Saúde, Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Ministério da Saúde, Brazil

to identify the characteristics and reasons reported by Brazilian students for school bullying.

this cross-sectional study uses data from an epidemiological survey (National Survey of School Health) conducted in 2012. A total of 109,104 9th grade students from private and public schools participated. Data were collected through a self-applied questionnaire and the analysis was performed using SPSS, version 20, Complex Samples Module.

the prevalence of bullying was 7.2%, most frequently affecting Afro-descendant or indigenous younger boys, whose mothers were characterized by low levels of education. In regard to the reasons/causes of bullying, 51.2% did not specify; the second highest frequency of victimization was related to body appearance (18.6%); followed by facial appearance (16.2%); race/color (6.8%); sexual orientation 2.9%; religion 2.5%; and region of origin 1.7%. The results are similar to those found in other sociocultural contexts.

Conclusion:

the problem belongs to the health field because it gathers aspects that determine the students' health-disease-care continuum.

Introduction

The term bullying refers to a specific form of aggressive and violent behavior among peers in the school context. It is characterized by three criteria: intentionality, repeatability and imbalance of power ( 1 ) . Given the emphasis of this definition, school bullying are acts that repeat over time and involve a desire to harm colleagues or expose them to negative situations, while those exposed to negative situations have difficulty defending themselves ( 1 - 2 ) . This phenomenon may manifest directly and physically (e.g., hitting, spitting), verbally (derogatory nicknames, threats, insults, gossip), or through cyber-bullying (using social, electronic or communication media - internet, phone) or indirectly in situations where there is no direct confrontation among those involved (social exclusion, gossip) ( 3 - 4 ) .

Bullying is acknowledged as a relationship problem in which power is claimed through the use of violence and is a reality among school-aged children and adolescents in different cultural contexts ( 4 ) and a severe problem in many countries ( 3 - 5 ) . This phenomenon may lead students to experience psychological distress, compromise the teaching-learning process and influence how individuals respond to social demands over the course of their lives. These negative consequences ( 4 , 6 ) , entailed for all those involved and associated with increased prevalence and frequency with which bullying occurs ( 7 - 8 ) , transformed bullying into a severe public health problem worldwide ( 9 - 10 ) .

Studies show that both boys and girls become involved in situations of violence at school, though the actions in which they engage are different. Boys are more likely to experience physical bullying, while girls engage in indirect or verbal exchanges ( 1 , 5 , 10 ) . Even though there are an increased number of studies addressing school bullying, few of them address causal factors or the reasons determining the phenomenon. In general, the focus of investigations is on the characteristics of the students involved, the phenomenon's variables and the nuances it assumes in the school context without, however, establishing the reasons that explain this phenomenon.

In this sense, evidence from the scientific literature addressing this subject suggests that the dynamics of bullying is a result of the students' characteristics, the vulnerability or social status of one student in relation to another, that differentiate and segregate peers ( 3 ) . A study conducted in Netherlands with 80,770 students reports that the reasons students presented for the practice of bullying were physical appearance, individual behavior, level of school performance, physical or mental disabilities, religious aspects, gender issues, sexual orientation, and the inappropriate manner some students dealt with punishment ( 11 ) . The average prevalence of students identified as involved in bullying was 32.5% ( 11 ) .

A longitudinal studied conducted in the United States reports empirical evidence of increased school bullying beginning in the second half of the 2000s, with a prevalence of 25.8% in 2009 ( 12 ) . The study reports bullying was more common and more intense among boys, Afro-descendants, from rural areas, living with single parents, with low school performance and a low level of religious identification ( 12 ) . A Swedish study, reporting a prevalence of 44% of victims and aggressors, reports that adolescents tend to explain the phenomenon in terms of individual reasons instead of offering other dimensions like peer groups, school context, or social issues ( 5 ) . The study also reveals that aggressors were more likely to blame the victim ( 5 ) .

In Brazil, the complexity of concrete problems such as bullying and a concern with school health culminated in 2007 with the implementation of the Programa Saúde na Escola [Health Program at School], an inter-sector policy promoting the delivery of integral healthcare to school-aged children and adolescents. According to this proposal, primary healthcare (PHC) teams must put into practice actions that are focused on the promotion of health according to the principles and guidelines of the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), addressing the dimensions of a culture of peace and fighting the various expressions of violence within schools and the community ( 13 ) .

Therefore, identifying the causes and reasons students become involved with bullying is essential to implementing coping strategies focused on human development and health promotion in the school context. From this perspective, this study's aim was to identify the reasons associated with school bullying reported by adolescents in public and private schools in Brazil.

Study's design

This cross-sectional study used data from the National Survey of School Health (PeNSE), conducted in 2012. PeNSE addressed behavioral factors of risk and health protection in a sample of 8 th grade students attending daytime programs of public and private schools located in urban or rural areas from the entire Brazilian territory. The 9 th grade was chosen because it is the minimum level of education required to complete the self-administered questionnaire during data collection.

Study setting and sampling

The 2010 School Census was used to select the sample and those schools reporting 9 th grade classes administered during daytime hours were included in the list; nighttime programs were excluded. The sample was sized to estimate population parameters (proportions or prevalence) in diverse geographic domains comprising the 26 state capitals along with the Federal District; the set of capitals; the five geographic regions (North, Northeast, Southeast, South, and Midwest) in addition to the country as a whole. A probabilistic sample was used and the sampling plan was formed by schools (primary sampling units) and the schools' classes (secondary sampling units). In the case of non-capital cities, the primary sampling units were groups of cities and the secondary sampling units were schools, while classrooms were the tertiary sampling units. A total of 134,310 9 th grade students were enrolled in the selected classes administered during daytime hours by public and private schools located in urban and rural areas in the entire Brazilian territory. Of these, 132,123 students were considered regular students and 110,873 were present in classrooms on the day the questionnaire was applied. The final sample included 109,104 students, i.e., 83% of those considered eligible for the study ( 14 ) .

A total of 86% of students in the sample surveyed in 2012 were between 13 and 15 years old; 47.8% were male and 52.2% were female; and 17.2% students were from private schools and 82.8% were from public schools ( 14 ) .

Data were collected using smartphones, which were included in the structured, self-applied questionnaires with thematic modules that varied in the number of questions contained. Bullying was one of the dimensions addressed. Data collection was implemented by previously trained agents from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), in schools during classes from April to September 2012. Further details concerning the methodology can be obtained in specific publications ( 14 ) .

Studied variables

The variable bullying was obtained through the question: "How often did some of your friends belittle, mock, scorn, intimidate or scoff at you IN THE LAST 30 DAYS to the point that you became hurt, bothered, annoyed, offended, or humiliated? The answers were categorized as NO (never, rarely, sometimes) and YES (most of the time, always).

Reasons/causes related to why one experiences bullying were verified through the question: "What is the reason/cause your friends have belittled, mocked, scorned, intimidated or scoffed at you IN THE LAST 30 DAYS?" The answers to this question were analyzed according to the following options: (a) My race or color; b) My religion; c) The appearance of my face; d) the appearance of my body; e) My sexual orientation; f) My region of origin; g) Other reasons.

Statistical Analysis

The analysis was performed through the computation of the prevalence of the variables experiencing bullying and their respective confidence intervals of 95%, according to the sociodemographic aspects of experiencing bullying (sex, age, race/color, religion, public or private school, mother's education). The reasons/causes of experiencing bullying reported by the students were analyzed according to sociodemographic aspects stratified by race or color, religion, facial appearance, body appearance, sexual orientation, region of origin, others.

When the reason one experienced bullying was reported to be the appearance of body, it was cross-tabulated with the variable Body Image, which was verified by the question: In regard to your body, do you consider yourself: Too thin, Thin, Normal, Fat, Too fat?

These analyses were performed using SPSS, version 20, with the Complex Samples Module, appropriate for data analyses obtained by a complex sampling plan ( 15 ) .

Ethical issues

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board according to referee report No. 192/2012 Registry No. 16805, CONEP/MS on March 27, 2012.

Table 1 shows that 7.2% (CI95% 6.6-7.8) of the students reported having experienced bullying, always or almost always felt humiliated, by schoolmates. The percentages were higher among male students, 7.9% (CI95% 7.0-9.1), in comparison to female students, 6.5% (CI95% 6.2-6.7); among students whose mothers were characterized by low levels of education, 8.3% (CI95% 7.2-9.4); among those who reported themselves to be Afro-descendant, 8.1% (CI 95%: 7.2-9.1); and among those self-reported as indigenous people 7.9% (CI95%: 7.3-8.5). No difference was found between private schools, 7.6% (CI95%: 6.9-8.3) and private school students, 7.1% (CI95%: 6.2-8.0).

Most times, 51.2% (CI95% 48.6-53.7%), causes of bullying were not identified followed by body image or appearance, 18.6% (CI95% 16.5-21); facial appearance, 16.2% (15.4%-17.1%); race or color, 6.8% (CI95% 6.4-7.3); sexual orientation, 2.9% (CI95% 2.5-3.5); religion, 2.5% (CI95% 1.9-3.2); and region of origin, 1.7 (CI95%1.5-2). The frequencies of those reporting having experienced bullying and those reporting always or almost always experienced bullying in the last 30 days were similar, except for those reporting the reason was their race/color, among whom frequency increased to always, as shown in Table 2 .

Body appearance was cross-tabulated with the variable body image for those reporting that the appearance of their bodies was the reason they suffered bullying, which showed bullying was more frequent among those reporting they were either too fat or too thin, 19.2% (CI95% 15.1-24) and 12.1% (CI95% 10.4-14.0), respectively ( Table 3 ).

The reasons did not vary according to age, except in regard to sexual orientation among students younger than 13 years of age (15% - CI95%: 7.2-28.6). In regard to sex, boys were more frequently bullied than girls and also more frequently reported experiencing bullying triggered by their race or color 8.9% (CI95% 8.19-9.9), while 4.5% (CI95% 3.8-5.2) of the girls reported bullying was triggered for this reason. A total of 3.9% (CI95% 3.5-4.5) of the boys and 1.8% (CI95% 1.2-2.0) of the girls reporting bullying was triggered by their sexual orientation. Race/color shows considerable difference in regard to how often bullying is experienced: Afro-descendant boys report four times more bullying, 23.2% (CI95% 21.8-24.7), while indigenous students report bullying at twice the frequency, 12.5% (CI95%7.5-20.3). Students of mixed race (3.8% CI95% 2.9-4.8), Caucasian (3.1% CI95% 2.5-3.9), and Asian (4.7% CI95% 1.4-14.4), reported bullying is experienced less frequently. Public schools also present a higher number of reports of bullying triggered by race/color, 7.2% (CI95% 6.6-8.0). Bullying triggered by race/color also increased among children of mothers with no education, 11.6% (CI95% 8.5-15.6), as shown in Table 4 .

This study's findings show that 7.2% of the students experienced bullying, which was more frequently reported by younger boys, whose mothers present lower levels of education, and are of Afro-descent or indigenous. Most did not report the reason or cause that triggers bullying. In regard to differences between sexes, the causes reported by boys and girls were similar, mostly appearance of the face and body, however, boys most frequently reported bullying triggered by race/color and sexual orientation.

This study highlights that "other reasons/causes" is the most frequent option chosen to explain bullying. The frequency with which this option was chosen may be due to the poor understanding of students concerning the process of victimization or how they qualify jokes or the experience of being bullied. The process of victimization is characterized by receiving negative attention or aggressive behavior from peers over time and what determines its occurrence is being different or behaving differently others ( 2 ) . Investigating what causes the phenomenon based on self-reports addresses these dimensions and the sensitive nature of the issues implicated in the issue.

Almost a fifth of the students reported body appearance, followed by facial appearance, as being causes of bullying. Similar results were found in other contexts that indicate that physical appearance is one of the main reasons a student becomes a victim of bullying ( 16 ) . A potential interpretation for this information involves culturally valued social standards in which diversity and differences are not tolerated. One epidemiological study conducted with 1,230 students from a city in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, identified that 30.1% were overweight or obese, showing that students dissatisfied with their body image were three times more likely to be victims of bullying. Statistically, however, excess weight was not significantly associated with the phenomenon ( 16 ) . In turn one study, similar to this study, that was developed in Ireland reports that body image, such as considering oneself to be thin or too thin, was significantly associated with being a victim ( 17 ) .

Classical studies addressing this phenomenon do not report evidence that body image is a determinant factor in the process of victimization ( 1 ) . Other studies however, verify that victims often present characteristics that distinguish them from most of their peers, such as obesity, thinness, or the use of prosthetics or orthotics ( 18 - 19 ) .

A student's skin color or race was also reported as being significantly associated with victimization. Afro-descendant students were four times more likely to experience bullying, while indigenous people were two times more likely to experience bullying. This dimension is also linked to social and cultural issues, to racism and prejudice, since there is a hegemonic pattern of valuing white skin ( 20 - 23 ) . One study in the United States correlated race with gender and identified that these variables were significant predictors of bullying. The study shows that boys were 25.5% more likely to become victims than girls, while Afro-descendant students were 46.3% more likely to become victims at school than Caucasian students ( 23 ) . Afro-descendant and indigenous students addressed in this study were also more likely to become victims due to their race/color. It is worth noting that individuals of mixed race did not present the same rates of being bullied, an aspect that shows the importance of verifying whether students from different races have different criteria to identify and assess violent practices.

We cannot ignore the factors and individual variables that explain the phenomenon, as we cannot ignore contextual factors, such as mother's education, in the determination of bullying. As observed, the indication of no maternal education was the most prevalent for victimization and the scientific literature considers this variable to be a demographic predictor of students' success or failure at school. One study recently conducted in the United States reports that students whose mothers presented low levels of education were more likely to become victims ( 12 ) . In general, results concerning association between mother's education and involvement with bullying are explored because the mother's education is considered to be relevant within the families' set of social and cultural characteristics.

Other issues, such as the students' sexual orientation, religion and region of origin, are not shown to be expressive causes for victimization. In fact, these individual characteristics of students are less frequently observed than other characteristics. Nonetheless, they are manifested differently between sexes; for instance, boys more frequently report victimization associated with sexual orientation than do girls. Additionally, the literature shows that sexual orientation is one of the reasons related to bullying ( 11 ) . Therefore, these are important variables through which the phenomenon may be approached and related to proposing interventions intended to understand diversity, especially considering the diffuse nature of these in modern times and the emergence of other expressions of sexuality, religiosity, and migratory movements that require understanding and tolerance of diversity ( 4 , 23 - 24 ) .

Overall, the results are relevant and contribute to the understanding of bullying and enable discussing the problem of violence within the school environment. Bullying is manifested through different signs, behaviors, and prejudice in interpersonal relationships among students. Because of its specificity and complexity, bullying in an interdisciplinary and inter-sector object that demands solutions follow the same logic and direction, such as the Health School Project. Education actions and health promotion at school are different ways for PHC workers to encourage new forms in which students may relate with each other and with the world ( 10 , 13 ) .

Finally we mention some of the study's limitations. Despite the survey's validity and reliability, its cross-sectional design hinders causal/temporal inferences between exposure to or involvement with school bullying. This limits addressing the issue of causality, though this study's results agree with those reported by prospective studies. In this sense, the individual characteristics of victims do not justify aggressive and violent behavior that is inherent to bullying, as they cannot be isolated, assessed and exclusively seen as causes or motivations to become involved with the phenomenon. Another limitation is the large number of references to the option "other causes/reasons" in the experience of bullying. Hence, we suggest that other psychological characteristics or social relationships be addressed by the instrument, such as shyness, reservation in resolving conflicts, low self-esteem, among other factors. Additionally, students should be asked to indicate causes and reasons they suffer bullying even after providing alternative answers, as an opportunity to fill in some of the gaps observed.

Conclusions

This study's results concerning the identification of reasons associated with bullying among Brazilian students show that some individual characteristics are related to the phenomenon and contextual aspects that determine it. Bullying is a common experience in the lives of Brazilian students and a problem within the domain of the health field since it gathers determinants of the health-disease-care process for school-aged children and adolescents. This debate is highly important because it support tools for the development of other studies and health practices, especially in primary healthcare and in the interface between health and education.

We expect these data to encourage attention being paid to public policies concerning this issue, resulting in indicators being provided that can support the development of coping strategies at the inter-sector and inter-disciplinary levels, with a view to encourage a non-violent culture, partnering the health and education sectors. Further studies are needed, especially those providing qualitative analyses or triangulation methods and approaches, to understand the meanings and processes in which bullying emerges in the school context and its dynamics in the reality of Brazilian schools.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 26 May 2024

Effects of expanded adverse childhood experiences including school bullying, childhood poverty, and natural disasters on mental health in adulthood

• Natsu Sasaki 1 ,
• Kazuhiro Watanabe 2 ,
• Yoshiaki Kanamori 3 ,
• Takahiro Tabuchi 4 , 5 ,
• Takeo Fujiwara 6 &
• Daisuke Nishi 1  

Scientific Reports volume  14 , Article number:  12015 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

500 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Medical research
• Risk factors

The study aimed to examine the association of expanded adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) with psychological distress in adulthood. The data from nation-wide online cohort was used for analysis. Community dwelling adults in Japan were included. The ACEs was assessed by 15 items of ACE-J, including childhood poverty and school bullying. Severe psychological distress was determined as the score of Kessler 6 over 13. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, by using sample weighting. A total of 28,617 participants were analyzed. About 75% of Japanese people had one or more ACEs. The prevalence of those with ACEs over 4 was 14.7%. Those with ACEs over 4 showed adjusted odds ratio = 8.18 [95% CI 7.14–9.38] for severe psychological distress. The prevalence of childhood poverty was 29% for 50–64 year old participants and 40% of 65 or older participants. The impact of childhood poverty on psychological distress was less than other ACEs in these age cohorts. Bullying was experienced 21–27% in young generations, but 10% in 65 or older participants. However, the impact on psychological distress in adulthood was relatively high in all age groups. ACEs have impacted mental health for a long time. Future research and practice to reduce ACEs are encouraged.

Similar content being viewed by others

Investigating child sexual abuse material availability, searches, and users on the anonymous Tor network for a public health intervention strategy

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

MDMA-assisted therapy for moderate to severe PTSD: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Introduction.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are traumatic events that children and adolescents under 18 years of age have experienced 1 . People with a history of ACEs are at greater risk of deterioration in physical and mental health 2 , 3 , and ultimately premature mortality 4 , 5 . The cumulative effect of a diverse range of ACEs can impact health outcomes in adulthood and far beyond from life-course perspectives 6 , 7 . Studies increasingly establish evidence that ACEs leads to develop mental health issues, including depression, substance misuse, and suicide 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 . A World Health Organization (WHO) study revealed that ACEs were associated with all lifetime DSM–IV disorders worldwide 12 . These associations are explained by both neurobiological development and external factors 13 . For example, early life exposure to chronic stress causes greater activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrena (HPA) axis, and high levels of inflammation, resulting in deficits of cognitive and affective functioning and increased allostatic load 14 , 15 . ACEs also lead to impaired social functioning, such as lack of social support 16 , 17 , 18 .

ACEs traditionally included childhood maltreatment and household dysfunction. For example, physical neglect, characterized by a caregiver's failure to provide for a child's basic physical needs. Recently, the concept has been expanded to include community-level and social factors, such as school bullying and economic hardship 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 . Furthermore, ACEs can differ by race, culture, and era 19 , 22 . An ACE scale for the Japanese context (ACE-J) has been developed to assess expanded ACEs reflecting the Japanese situation 7 and its potential benefit of use is to capture the influence of expanded and culturally familiar ACEs on outcomes. For example, Japan has a high prevalence of both school bullying victimization and natural disasters compared to other countries 24 , 25 . Childhood poverty is also considered an important factor as a root cause of ACEs from life-course perspective 26 . Although the relationship between the conventional ACEs and mental health issues in adulthood have been well investigated, the more recent potential constructs of ACEs should be further explored 27 .

Few studies have examined long-term effects of a wide range of ACEs in Asians. In Japan, the association of conventional ACEs with mental health was last reported in 2011 28 . A scoping review about different types of ACEs from articles (n = 1281) showed that less articles reported expanded ACEs (e.g., household financial hardship; 18%, victimization by peers; 10%, exposure to natural disasters; 2%) 23 . Besides, over 60% of the articles related to ACEs published from United States 23 . This disproportionate evidence motivates researchers to examine long-term impact mental health by expanded ACEs in various countries. The understanding of its association in ethnic groups of a particular culture can lead to the development and implementation of locally sensitive countermeasures 29 . Moreover, empirical evidence about the association of the expanded concept of ACEs on mental health would benefit specifically to evaluate the impacts of each ACE.

The aim of this study was thus to examine the association of expanded ACEs with mental health in adulthood in Japanese community sample. The impact of childhood poverty and school bullying on mental health was investigated, considering demographic indicators.

Research design

For this research, we utilized data from the Japan COVID-19 and Society Internet Survey (JACSIS), an ongoing nationwide online cohort study conducted in Japan 30 . JACSIS cohort study began in August 2020. The JACSIS included community-dwelling individuals aged 15–79 years. The baseline sample of JACSIS was collected in 2020, consisting of 28,000 participants. In 2022, a follow-up survey was conducted for the participants from 2020 survey or 2021 survey, and new participants were also invited. This resulted in a total of 32,000 participants in the 2022 survey. This study employed a cross-sectional design using the JACSIS 2022 data, which was collected in September 2022.

Participant recruitment

To recruit participants, we utilized email messages to request survey participation from a research panel maintained by Rakuten Insight, Inc. This private company have information about over 2.2 million individuals aged 15 to 79 years with diverse sociodemographic backgrounds, representing the national population across all 47 prefectures of Japan. We employed a simple random sampling method based on sex, age, and prefecture category in accordance with the official Japanese demographic composition as of October 1, 2019, to select potential participants. Those who agreed to participate were provided access to a designated website. Participants had the option to skip questions or discontinue the survey at any point.

Data quality management

To ensure the validity of the data, we excluded respondents who exhibited discrepancies or provided artificial/unnatural responses. Specifically, we used three question items to identify such responses: "Please choose the second from the bottom," "choosing positive in all of a set of questions for using drugs," and "choosing positive in all of a set of questions for having chronic diseases." A total of 3,370 respondents were found to have provided such responses and were subsequently excluded from the study.

Participants

Our study included community-dwelling individuals in Japan who were over 18 years old and had complete data. Participants who were under 18 years old were excluded (n = 13).

Measurement variables

Expanded adverse childhood experiences.

We assessed Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Japanese version (ACE-J) questionnaire 7 . The ACE-J questionnaire was developed to measure individuals' exposure to various adversities during their childhood in Japan. For example, incarcerated household member was excluded, reflecting Japanese culture. Each category of adversity was represented by a single item, except for parental loss, which included both parental death and divorce or separation. In addition to the CDC-Kaiser ACE questionnaire 1 , the ACE-J included, childhood poverty, overcontrol, school bullying, hospitalization due to chronic disease, and exposure to life-threatening natural disasters. The ACE-J questionnaire consisted of a total of 15 items (parental death, parental divorce, mental illness in the household, substance abuse in the household, mother treated violently, physical abuse, physical neglect, emotional abuse, emotional neglect, childhood poverty, overcontrol [“I always felt suffocated because my parents did not respect my opinion”], school bullying, sexual abuse, hospitalization due to chronic disease, natural disaster), and participants were asked whether they had experienced each adversity before the age of 18. The response options were "Yes" or "No." One item related to emotional neglect was a reversed question, specifically assessing whether participants felt loved by their parents. To calculate the total number of ACEs experienced, the score of the reversed item was reversed, and the summed score of all ACE items was used. The ACE-J questionnaire was not validated in publication.

Psychological distress

Psychological distress refers to a broad range of emotional and psychological symptoms or experiences that can cause discomfort, suffering, or impairment in daily functioning.　Psychological distress was measured by The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6), which has been widely used and is preferred for screening for any DSM-IV mood or anxiety disorder. K6 includes six items that measure the frequency of psychological distress symptoms experienced by participants over the past 30 days 31 . Participants provide responses on a scale ranging from 0 (none of the time) to 4 (all the time). Previous studies have reported satisfactory internal reliability and validity for Japanese version of K6, showing that performance in areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) was 0.94 detecting DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders 32 . K6 scores over 13 are regarded as a serious mental distress 31 , 33 , 34 . Prevalence of people with over 13 scores of K6 was reported 4% in Japan 35 .

Demographic characteristics

The sociodemographic characteristics of the participants were assessed, including age, sex, educational attainment (categorized as less than high school, vocational/college, undergraduate, graduate or over), marital status (categorized as married, single/divorced), household income (categorized as < 3 million yen, 3–5 million yen, 5–8 million yen, 8–10 million yen, over 10 million yen, or no response/unknown), and working status (categorized as paid work, no paid work, or students).

Statistical analyses

First, the descriptive statistics were estimated. These included the prevalence of ACEs and severe psychological distress and the coexistence of the ACEs. To address a potential sampling bias due to the internet survey, a propensity score for participation in the internet survey was calculated. We utilized a demographic distribution of a national paper-based survey, the Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions of People on Health and Welfare (CSLCPHW). Using sex and age group stratifications (sex × age groups = 14 strata), we calculated the propensity score separately for each stratum. The mean of the score was group-mean centered and was set to 1.0 within each stratum. Residential area, marital status, education, home-ownership (household), self-rated health and smoking status, which were available both CSLCPHW and JACSIS, were used for the model to calculate the propensity scores. The inversed propensity score was used as the sampling weight for the calculation of the prevalence of the ACEs and psychological distress. The difference in the prevalence of ACEs among stratified categories (sex and age groups) was tested using a chi-square test. Also, the summed number of ACEs was tested using a t-test in sex and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in age category. The coexistence of the ACEs was presented as a matrix.

For the main analysis, the associations of ACEs with severe psychological distress were assessed by using logistic regression analysis, adjusted by age, sex, marital status household income, work, and educational attainment. The sampling bias was also adjusted by the inversed propensity score. Additionally, the subgroup analyses were conducted stratified by sex and age categories. The statistical significance for all analyses in this study is set at 0.05 (two-tailed), and 95% CIs were calculated. SPSS 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) Japanese version was used.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Graduate School of Medicine/Faculty of Medicine, The University of Tokyo (no. 2020336NI-(3)) and by the Research Ethics Committee of the Osaka International Cancer Institute (no. 20084). All methods were carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Online informed consent was obtained from all participants with full disclosure and explanation of the purpose and procedures of this study. The panelists had the option to not respond to any part of the questionnaire and the option to discontinue participation in the survey at any point.

A total of 28,617 community dwelling people was included in the analysis. The participants’ characteristics are presented in Table 1 . The mean age was 48 years old (standard deviation [SD] = 17.1). Majority demographics included those who were married (62%), with undergraduate level of educational attainment (46%), and with paid work (65%).

The sample weighted prevalence of expanded ACEs is presented in Table 2 . The overall prevalence of expanded ACEs was varied from lowest (physical neglect = 3.2%) to highest (emotional neglect = 38.5%). The mean of summed number of ACEs was 1.75 (SD = 1.94). The histogram of the summed number of ACEs is presented in Supplementary Fig.  1 . The prevalence of those with ACEs over 4 was 14.7%. The prevalence of childhood poverty and school bullying was 26.3% and 20.8%, respectively.

For sexual difference, the mean of the summed number of ACEs was larger for females (1.85 vs 1.65; p < 0.001). Sexual abuse was particularly experienced more in female populations (6.9% vs 1.8%). For age difference, the mean of the summed number of ACEs was highest in age 35–49 years old (1.87 [SD 2.03]). Those over 65 years old showed lowest score of ACEs (1.55 [SD 1.73]). Among those over 65 years old, the prevalence of parental death (21%) and childhood poverty (40%) were higher than other age category (p < 0.001), and parental divorce (7%) was lower (p < 0.001).

Table 3 shows the prevalence of severe psychological distress (K6 ≥ 13), which was adjusted for weighed scores. The overall prevalence was 10.4%. The prevalence of severe psychological distress increased as the number of ACEs increased. The highest prevalence of high distress was observed in those with ACEs over 4 in ages 18–34 years old (40.7%). In the group with the same number of ACEs, younger groups showed significantly high prevalence of severe distress compared to older groups (p < 0.001). The significant group difference of sex was not shown in the group with 2 or more ACEs.

The result of the associations of ACEs with severe psychological distress is presented in Table 4 , using a logistic regression analysis. Almost all individual ACEs, except parental death, were significantly associated with high distress in adulthood in adjusted model (odds ratio ranging from 1.23 to 4.01). The adjusted odds ratio of school bullying, hospitalization due to chronic disease, and natural disaster was 3.04, 2.67, and 2.66; respectively. The odds of high distress increased as the number of ACEs increased; those with ACEs over 4 showed adjusted OR = 8.18 [95% CI: 7.14–9.38].

The result of logistic regression analysis which was stratified by sex and age category is shown in Table 5 . Adjusted odds ratio was rather higher in male than female in physical neglect and sexual abuse (aOR = 4.68 [3.68–5.94], aOR = 4.05 [3.06–5.36]; respectively). In age category, physical abuse and physical neglect were highly impacted on the prevalence of high distress among those over 65 years old (aOR = 5.60 [2.87–10.93], aOR = 6.27 [3.41–11.55]; respectively), compared to other age group. However, parental death, parental divorce, and childhood poverty showed lower odds among those over 65 years old and 50–64 years old, compare to 18–34 years old and 35–49 years old.

Supplementary table 1 shows the relationship between ACEs, which was adjusted for weighted scores. We found high comorbidity of ACEs; for example, those who experienced physical abuse also experienced emotional abuse (75%), overcontrol (68%), and emotional neglect (65%).

This study presented the high prevalence of expanded ACEs in Japan and its strong impact on mental health in adulthood. The mean of summed number of ACEs as measured by expanded ACEs scoring customized for Japanese people was 1.75. The prevalence of those with ACEs over 4 was 14.7% and they significantly showed high odds on severe psychological distress in adulthood, compared to those with none ACE (aOR = 8.18 [95% CI 7.14–9.38]). Childhood poverty showed lower odds among those over 65 years old and 50–64 years old compared to other ACEs. Bullying relatively showed higher odds among all age categories, with some difference of prevalence across age category.

About 75% of participants had one or more ACEs in this study. Reports of worldwide prevalence of ACEs are lower, including 62% in U.S. 36 and 47% in Europe 37 , by measuring 11 items of ACEs in both studies. A systematic review of a ACE-related study with a large sample reported that a pooled prevalence of individuals with one ACE was 23.5% in Europe and 23.4% in North America, and those with two or more was 18.7% in Europe and 35.0% in North America 38 . However, in expanded ACE study (The Philadelphia Urban ACE Study), a prevalence of 83.2% had at least one ACE and 37.3% experienced four or more ACEs, measured by 14 items with additional stresses including bullying 39 . These studies support our findings of prevalence of expanded ACEs.

Among 15 of the expanded ACEs, emotional neglect, childhood poverty, and bullying showed highest prevalence (39%, 26%, and 21%, respectively). A previous study from 2002–2004 using Japanese data reported that parental death (12%), parental divorce (11%), family violence (10%), and physical abuse (8%) were the most prevalent, but neglect was reported less (2%) 28 . The prevalence of emotional neglect in this present study (26%) may be over reported. When compared to recent studies, the prevalence of psychological neglect was 11.6% 40 . One possible reason was that emotional neglect in our study was measured by an inverse item (i.e., “I felt loved by my parents.”). Reversed items in surveys sometimes cause measurement problems due to misresponses 41 . Since this data was obtained online, the misresponse or careless answer may be more likely to occur compared to in-person interviews. However, based on the finding that there is a significant positive association between the presence of emotional neglect and severe psychological distress, it is possible that emotional neglect is this prevalent in Japan. Possible factors contributing to a high prevalence of emotional neglect might include Japan's traditionally reserved emotional culture (e.g., less expression of positive feelings 42 ), insufficient emotional support due to parental employment and household issues, as well as inadequate systems for early detection and protection, potentially resulting in an elevated prevalence rate. The expected level of “loved” for Japanese may be higher than the standard family relationship.

All 15 of the individual ACEs showed the negative impact on mental health, after adjusting covariates. Physical neglect and physical abuse showed highly negative associations (aOR = 4.01, 3.65; respectively). This result was partially consistent with the previous Japanese WHO survey data, which showed parental mental illness and physical abuse strongly affected the onset of mood disorder 28 . With a few exceptions 43 , few paper suggested that physical neglect had a significant impact on mental health; but we should note that those with physical neglect has high comorbidity of ACEs (e.g., childhood poverty, emotional abuse/neglect) in this study. Many studies suggested that emotional abuse and neglect had great impacts on mental health 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 . Such comorbidity might strengthen the impact of physical neglect. Consistent with Tzouvara and colleagues (2023), this study demonstrated that all ACEs can negatively impact mental health, and ACEs can manifest differently in different populations 27 .

In this study, school bullying impacted on deteriorated mental health in adulthood among all age categories, although the prevalence of experience was lower in older generations. School bullying have serious and lasting negative impacts on mental health, including depression 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , anxiety 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 54 , and risk of suicide 51 , 52 . Japan has a higher prevalence of school bullying compared to most other countries (i.e., Japan 22% vs OECD countries 19%) 55 . This study showed that the prevalence was low in elderly population. The possible reasons for this low prevalence may less awareness, different school dynamics (societal norms), and supportive community functions in old Japanese 56 . A previous study indicated the widely varied exposure to bullying across countries 57 , even in one country, the prevalence may vary from generation to generation. To reduce the prevalence, evidence-based practice is needed to be implemented at school 58 .

Natural disasters as one of ACEs was overall experienced 3.5% and impacted on severe psychological distress in adulthood, except those 65 or older. The findings were in line with the previous studies, demonstrating that when experiencing natural disaster, such as earthquake, heavy rain/snowfall, flood, heatwaves, storm, and/or tsunami, can cause short-term and long-term deterioration in mental health 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 . The worldwide climate is rapidly changing and we face the increased risk of natural disaster. Assessing the psychological impact that the experience of natural disaster(s) causes may become increasingly important in the near future, in addition to the effort to avoid children from being exposed such traumatic events.

Childhood poverty was experienced more in older age (40% in 65 or older; 17% in 18–34-year-old group), but the negative impact on mental health was less among the elderly population. This result was in line with a previous study showing that accumulative exposure of the economic hardship impacted mental health, but that negative association was attenuated if they experienced upwards mobility 63 . Many of elderly population in this study experienced childhood poverty, but financial difficulty might not persist and change positively. Even so, we should not ignore the importance of childhood poverty for mental health in adulthood, as significant effects have also been found in older adults. A possible mechanism of the link between childhood poverty and mental health are presented; persistent poverty-related challenging tasks 64 , disengagement coping strategy 65 , diminished spatial short-term memory, and helplessness behaviors 66 . Poverty is not only one of the critical social determinants of health 67 , but also an adversity that should primarily be addressed during childhood, when it has significant implications for neurodevelopment, social development, and behavior. The findings of the present study posed the need to ensure that poverty does not persist among the young generation, who suffered economically in childhood.

Overall, this study showed the cumulative negative impacts of expanded ACEs on psychological distress in Japanese adults, as well as individual adversities. A previous study suggested that a 10% reduction in ACE prevalence could equate to annual savings of 3 million DALYs or $105 billion 38 . Primary prevention, or preventing children from having ACEs is urgent action for public mental health. In addition, childhood maltreatment has consistently been shown to be associated with poor treatment outcome after psycho- or pharmaco-therapy in depression 68 . Trauma-informed care can be one of the important approaches to be implemented for tertiary prevention.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, generalizability of the findings was limited because this was an online cohort study. Although we adopted sample weighting to adjust the bias and examined the prevalence with large number of participants, we should note that the present result may possibly be different from the real data of community dwelling people in Japan. Participants of online survey have access to the internet and motivation to answer the questionnaire with small reward. It is possible that participants with certain demographic characteristics and traits are likely to participate. Second, a recall bias in terms of measuring ACEs was not avoided. Older participants answered less ACEs may underestimate the impact. Third, the definition of school bullying may also vary between younger and older generations. The authors should note that the outcome of this study was obtained self-report questionnaire and it could cause self-reporting bias. Fourth, there are possibly unconsidered/unmeasured confounding factors. Many factors which can impact on mental health during or after COVID-19 have been presented, but not all factors can be comprehensively considered in the analytic model of this study. Fifth, the number of respondents excluded from the analysis due to inappropriate answer was relatively high. It may be possible that this procedure exclude participants with certain response tendencies. Sixth, although K6 has been shown the relationship with clinical outcome and diagnosis, further study which utilize other clinical assessment may need to be conducted in the future. Seventh, the specific age of having adversity is not clear in this study, although the timing may be important in some ACEs. Future research is needed to consider such detailed information and to examine precise mechanism of the associations of ACEs on health.

Research, policy, and practical implications

Prospective longitudinal study with information about expanded ACEs and clinical diagnosis of mental health disease may be beneficial to suggest the exact impact of ACEs on mental health. Specifically, it is essential to further investigate modifiable childhood factors within the home and school environments to develop effective prevention measures for ACEs through public health policies.

Data availability

The data used in this study are not available in a public repository because they contain personally identifiable or potentially sensitive patient information. Based on the regulations for ethical guidelines in Japan, the Research Ethics Committee of the Osaka International Cancer Institute has imposed restrictions on the dissemination of the data collected in this study. All data enquiries should be addressed to the person responsible for data management, Dr. Takahiro Tabuchi, at the following e-mail address: [email protected].

Felitti, V. J. et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 14 (4), 245–258 (1998).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hughes, K. et al. The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 2 (8), e356–e366 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Petruccelli, K., Davis, J. & Berman, T. Adverse childhood experiences and associated health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 97 , 104127 (2019).

Anda, R. F. et al. The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in childhood: A convergence of evidence from neurobiology and epidemiology. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 256 , 174–186 (2006).

Bellis, M. A. et al. Measuring mortality and the burden of adult disease associated with adverse childhood experiences in England: a national survey. J. Public Health 37 (3), 445–454 (2015).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Shanahan, M. J. Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 26 (1), 667–692 (2000).

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Fujiwara, T. Impact of adverse childhood experience on physical and mental health: A life-course epidemiology perspective. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 76 (11), 544–551 (2022).

Fuller-Thomson, E., Baird, S. L., Dhrodia, R. & Brennenstuhl, S. The association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and suicide attempts in a population-based study. Child Care Health Dev. 42 (5), 725–734 (2016).

Leza, L., Siria, S., López-Goñi, J. J. & Fernández-Montalvo, J. Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and substance use disorder (SUD): A scoping review. Drug Alcohol Depend. 221 , 108563 (2021).

Merrick, M. T. et al. Unpacking the impact of adverse childhood experiences on adult mental health. Child Abuse Neglect 69 , 10–19 (2017).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Liu, M. et al. Adverse childhood experiences and related outcomes among adults experiencing homelessness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 6 (11), e836–e847 (2021).

Kessler, R. C. et al. Childhood adversities and adult psychopathology in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Br. J. Psychiatry 197 (5), 378–385 (2010).

Meyer, H. C. & Lee, F. S. Translating developmental neuroscience to understand risk for psychiatric disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 180 (8), 540–547 (2023).

Danese, A. & McEwen, B. S. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiol. Behav. 106 (1), 29–39 (2012).

Pechtel, P. & Pizzagalli, D. A. Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective function: An integrated review of human literature. Psychopharmacology 214 , 55–70 (2011).

Sheikh, M. A. The potential protective effect of friendship on the association between childhood adversity and psychological distress in adulthood: A retrospective, preliminary, three-wave population-based study. J. Affective Disord. 226 , 21–27 (2018).

Article   Google Scholar  

Forster, M., Grigsby, T. J., Gower, A. L., Mehus, C. J. & McMorris, B. J. The role of social support in the association between childhood adversity and adolescent self-injury and suicide: Findings from a Statewide sample of high school students. J. Youth Adolescence 49 (6), 1195–1208 (2020).

Weber Ku, E. B. et al. Natural mentoring relationships among survivors of caregiver childhood abuse: findings from the Add Health Study. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1483 (1), 50–66 (2021).

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cronholm, P. F. et al. Adverse childhood experiences: Expanding the concept of adversity. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 49 (3), 354–361 (2015).

Wade, R. Jr., Shea, J. A., Rubin, D. & Wood, J. Adverse childhood experiences of low-income urban youth. Pediatrics 134 (1), e13–e20 (2014).

MacLochlainn, J., Mallett, J., Kirby, K. & McFadden, P. Stressful events and adolescent psychopathology: A person-centred approach to expanding adverse childhood experience categories. J. Child Adolescent Trauma 15 (2), 327–340 (2022).

Finkelhor, D., Shattuck, A., Turner, H. & Hamby, S. Improving the adverse childhood experiences study scale. JAMA Pediatr. 167 (1), 70–75 (2013).

Karatekin, C. et al. Adverse childhood experiences: A scoping review of measures and methods. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 136 , 106425 (2022).

Fujiwara, T. et al. Clinically significant behavior problems among young children 2 years after the Great East Japan Earthquake. PLoS ONE 9 (10), e109342 (2014).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Tan, M. & Mao, P. Type and dose-response effect of adverse childhood experiences in predicting depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Child Abuse Neglect 139 , 106091 (2023).

Ben-Shlomo, Y. & Kuh, D. A Life Course Approach to Chronic Disease Epidemiology: Conceptual Models, Empirical Challenges and Interdisciplinary Perspectives 285–293 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002).

Google Scholar  

Tzouvara, V. et al. Adverse childhood experiences, mental health, and social functioning: A scoping review of the literature. Child Abuse Neglect 139 , 106092 (2023).

Fujiwara, T., Kawakami, N. & Group, W. M. H. J. S. Association of childhood adversities with the first onset of mental disorders in Japan: results from the World Mental Health Japan, 2002–2004. J. Psychiatric Res. 45 (4), 481–487 (2011).

Goldstein, E., Topitzes, J., Miller-Cribbs, J. & Brown, R. L. Influence of race/ethnicity and income on the link between adverse childhood experiences and child flourishing. Pediatric Res. 89 (7), 1861–1869 (2021).

Miyawaki, A., Tabuchi, T., Tomata, Y. & Tsugawa, Y. Association between participation in the government subsidy programme for domestic travel and symptoms indicative of COVID-19 infection in Japan: cross-sectional study. BMJ open. 11 (4), e049069 (2021).

Kessler, R. C. et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 60 (2), 184–189 (2003).

Furukawa, T. A. et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int. J. Methods Psychiatric Res. 17 (3), 152–158 (2008).

Prochaska, J. J., Sung, H. Y., Max, W., Shi, Y. & Ong, M. Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization. Int. J. Methods Psychiatric Res. 21 (2), 88–97 (2012).

Sakurai, K., Nishi, A., Kondo, K., Yanagida, K. & Kawakami, N. Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for mood and anxiety disorders in Japan. Psychiatry Clin. Neurosci. 65 (5), 434–441 (2011).

Nishi, D., Susukida, R., Usuda, K., Mojtabai, R. & Yamanouchi, Y. Trends in the prevalence of psychological distress and the use of mental health services from 2007 to 2016 in Japan. J. Affect. Disord. 239 , 208–213 (2018).

Merrick, M. T., Ford, D. C., Ports, K. A. & Guinn, A. S. Prevalence of adverse childhood experiences from the 2011–2014 behavioral risk factor surveillance system in 23 states. JAMA Pediatrics 172 (11), 1038–1044 (2018).

Bellis, M. A., Lowey, H., Leckenby, N., Hughes, K. & Harrison, D. Adverse childhood experiences: Retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and health outcomes in a UK population. J. Public Health 36 (1), 81–91 (2013).

Bellis, M. A. et al. Life course health consequences and associated annual costs of adverse childhood experiences across Europe and North America: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 4 , e517–e528 (2019).

Merritt, M., Cronholm, P., Davis, M., Dempsey, S., Fein, J., Kuykendall S, et al. Findings from the Philadelphia urban ACE survey 2013. Available from: https://www.rwjf.org/en/library/research/2013/09/findings-from-the-philadelphia-urban-ace-survey.html .

Amemiya, A., Fujiwara, T., Murayama, H., Tani, Y. & Kondo, K. Adverse childhood experiences and higher-level functional limitations among older Japanese people: Results From the JAGES Study. J. Gerontol. Ser. A 73 (2), 261–266 (2017).

Weijters, B. & Baumgartner, H. Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. J. Market. Res. 49 (5), 737–747 (2012).

Iwata, N., Roberts, C. R. & Kawakami, N. Japan-U.S. comparison of responses to depression scale items among adult workers. Psychiatry Res. 58 (3), 237–245 (1995).

Negriff, S. ACEs are not equal: Examining the relative impact of household dysfunction versus childhood maltreatment on mental health in adolescence. Soc. Sci. Med. 245 , 112696 (2020).

Gu, W. et al. Impact of adverse childhood experiences on the symptom severity of different mental disorders: A cross-diagnostic study. Gen. Psychiatry 35 (2), e100741 (2022).

Humphreys, K. L. et al. Child maltreatment and depression: A meta-analysis of studies using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse Neglect 102 , 104361 (2020).

van Duin, L. et al. The role of adverse childhood experiences and mental health care use in psychological dysfunction of male multi-problem young adults. Eur. Child Adolescent Psychiatry 28 (8), 1065–1078 (2019).

Peng, C. et al. Specific effects of five subtypes of childhood maltreatment on suicide behaviours in Chinese adolescents: The moderating effect of sex and residence. Epidemiol. Psychiatric Sci. 32 , e45 (2023).

McKay, M. T. et al. A revised and extended systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between childhood adversity and adult psychiatric disorder. J. Psychiatric Res. 156 , 268–283 (2022).

Moore, S. E. et al. Adolescent peer aggression and its association with mental health and substance use in an Australian cohort. J. Adolescence 37 (1), 11–21 (2014).

Jadambaa, A. et al. The contribution of bullying victimisation to the burden of anxiety and depressive disorders in Australia. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 29 , e54 (2019).

Takizawa, R., Maughan, B. & Arseneault, L. Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. Am. J. Psychiatry 171 (7), 777–784 (2014).

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A. & Costello, E. J. Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry 70 (4), 419–426 (2013).

Stapinski, L. A. et al. Peer victimization during adolescence and risk for anxiety disorders in adulthood: a prospective cohort study. Depression Anxiety 31 (7), 574–582 (2014).

Nielsen, M. B., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. B. & Magerøy, N. Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggress. Violent Behav. 21 , 17–24 (2015).

OECD. Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2015 Students’ Well-Being. 2017 [Available from: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA2015-Students-Well-being-Country-note-Japan.pdf .

Treml, J. N. Bullying as a social malady in contemporary Japan. Int. Soc. Work 44 (1), 107–117 (2001).

Craig, W. et al. A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. Int. J. Public Health 54 (2), 216–224 (2009).

Farrington David, P. & Ttofi, M. M. Reducing school bullying: Evidence-based implications for policy. Crime Just. 38 , 281–345 (2009).

Liu, J. et al. Is there an association between hot weather and poor mental health outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ. Int. 153 , 106533 (2021).

Romanello, M. et al. The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: Health at the mercy of fossil fuels. Lancet 400 (10363), 1619–1654 (2022).

Novia, K., Hariyanti, T. & Yuliatun, L. The impact of natural disaster on mental health of victims lives: Systematic review. Int. J. Sci. Soc. 2 (3), 65–85 (2020).

Makwana, N. Disaster and its impact on mental health: A narrative review. J. Family Med. Primary Care 8 (10), 3090–3095 (2019).

Morrissey, K. & Kinderman, P. The impact of childhood socioeconomic status on depression and anxiety in adult life: Testing the accumulation, critical period and social mobility hypotheses. SSM Popul. Health 11 , 100576 (2020).

Hao, Y., De France, K. & Evans, G. W. Persistence on challenging tasks mediates the relationship between childhood poverty and mental health problems. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 46 (6), 562–567 (2022).

Kim, P., Neuendorf, C., Bianco, H. & Evans, G. W. Exposure to childhood poverty and mental health symptomatology in adolescence: A role of coping strategies. Stress Health 32 (5), 494–502 (2016).

Evans, G. W. Childhood poverty and adult psychological well-being. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (52), 14949–14952 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Marmot, M. The health gap: the challenge of an unequal world. Lancet 386 (10011), 2442–2444 (2015).

Lippard, E. T. C. & Nemeroff, C. B. The devastating clinical consequences of child abuse and neglect: Increased disease vulnerability and poor treatment response in mood disorders. Am. J. Psychiatry 180 (8), 548–564 (2023).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all study respondents and lab members for their sincere support.

This work was funded by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grants [Grant Number 17H03589;19K10671;19K10446;18H03107; 18H03062;20H00040; 21H04856; 21H03203], the JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists [Grant Number 19K19439], Research Support Program to Apply the Wisdom of the University to tackle COVID-19 Related Emergency Problems, University of Tsukuba, and a Health Labour Sciences Research Grant [Grant Number 19FA1005;19FG2001;22FA2001; 22FA1010].

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Mental Health, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 1130033, Japan

Natsu Sasaki & Daisuke Nishi

Department of Public Health, Kitasato University School of Medicine, Sagamihara, Japan

Kazuhiro Watanabe

Department of Psychiatric Nursing, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

Yoshiaki Kanamori

Cancer Control Center, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan

Takahiro Tabuchi

The Tokyo Foundation for Policy Research, Tokyo, Japan

Department of Public Health, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan

Takeo Fujiwara

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Author D.N. was in charge of this study, supervising the process, and providing his expert opinion on the subject. Authors N.S., T.T., and D.N. organized the study design. The questionnaire was created through discussions with collaborators outside of this work. N.S. analyzed the data. N.S. wrote the first draft of the manuscript, and T.T., T.F., Y.K., and K.W. revised the manuscript critically. K.W. and Y.K. supported the data analysis. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. The sponsors played no role in the design of the study; in collecting the data or managing the study; in data analysis; in the interpretation of the data; in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daisuke Nishi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare 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

Supplementary figure 1., supplementary table 1., 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

Cite this article.

Sasaki, N., Watanabe, K., Kanamori, Y. et al. Effects of expanded adverse childhood experiences including school bullying, childhood poverty, and natural disasters on mental health in adulthood. Sci Rep 14 , 12015 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62634-7

Download citation

Received : 17 October 2023

Accepted : 20 May 2024

Published : 26 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62634-7

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

• Maltreatment
• Life-course
• Public health

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Charlotte students examine youth violence in local 'Do the Write Thing' contest

Two Charlotte middle schoolers are headed to Washington, D.C., next month after writing about youth violence for Mecklenburg’s County “Do the Write Thing” writing competition.

It’s an annual contest that asks middle schoolers to write about how youth violence has affected their lives and what they can do to stop it.

In her winning essay, 12-year-old Qui'arie Randall of Northwest Middle School wrote about getting bullied as a new student.

"There was these people who really didn't know me, but they started to judge me and talk about what I wear and just being rude people," she told WFAE.

She wrote in her essay that the bullying "caused me distress, and to take my fits of anger out on the people I loved."

She said she also took her hurt out on another student, before talking with her aunt and a therapist who explained that bullying is often more about the bully than the person getting picked on.

"'Cause they feel like if they bully somebody else, it’s just gonna make them feel better because they went through the same thing that they’re doing to the other person," she said.

Meanwhile, 13-year-old Justice Fields of Whitewater Middle School wrote an essay remembering a cheerleader from his previous school in Mount Vernon, New York, who was killed in a fight.

"After Kayla’s death, the football and cheer practices were canceled. Many parents were concerned about the well being of their children. Some of the cheerleaders had to isolate themselves because they were receiving death threats and fear of not being safe," he wrote.

He also wrote about how he thinks the killing could have been avoided.

"How it was adults at the scene there that could have helped and prevented it, but instead of doing that they watched," he said.

Both students said social media is playing a major role in bullying and youth violence, and that kids and adults should work together to stop situations from getting out of hand — such as online comments turning into a fight, stabbing or shooting.

Qui’arie’s aunt, Mary Ayler, said kids also have to believe in their own self-worth.

"Like, at the end of the day, you are Qui’arie — and nobody can change that. You are beautiful, and don’t let anybody tell you different," Ayler said.

The two students will represent Mecklenburg County at the National Campaign to Stop Violence Recognition Week in July.

Sign up for our Education Newsletter

•   Education News written by WFAE reporter Ann Doss Helms (Mondays)
•   html
•   text

To Ban or Not to Ban? Educators, Parents, and Students Weigh In on Cellphones

• Share article

One reason policing cellphones in schools is so challenging is because of stakeholders’ varying opinions on their presence in the classroom, along with different views on how the problem should be dealt with—if at all.

Simultaneously taking into account the interests of students, parents, and teachers in crafting cellphone policies has proven to be a challenge. For example, while teachers may want the constant distractions of cellphones—and the hundreds of notifications they deliver each day —removed, parents may desire the security of reaching their children at any time.

Various educators have outwardly opposed the use of cellphones in classrooms, citing students’ inability to remain focused while having access to their devices. Yet educators are still divided on banning cellphones in the classroom altogether.

Education Week has spoken with many school community members, from superintendents to students, to hear their points of view. Here, we share some of the major themes that have emerged from their comments and thoughts—from Education Week reporting and recent surveys from the EdWeek Research Center.

Teachers find cellphones a major classroom distraction

According to an October 2023 EdWeek Research Center survey , 24 percent of teachers thought cellphones should be banned from school campuses altogether. The growing push to restrict cellphones at school has come amid increasing concerns about and studies pointing to children’s deteriorating mental health in connection to smartphone and social media use .

Kelly Chevalier, a science teacher at Crown Point High School in northwest Indiana, told Education Week in April that her students are constantly on their phones —be it for messaging their friends, Googling information, or just playing games—describing their use as “an addiction.”

The idea of being without their phone for three hours—it literally causes some of them physiological anxiety.

As part of that October survey by the EdWeek Research Center, over 200 educators used an open-ended question to vent about their growing concerns over cellphones.

Some compared students’ use of cellphones to an addiction or described circumstances in which students became panicked over having their cellphones taken from them .

It’s impossible as a teacher to compete with the allure and addiction to the cellphone. It’s constantly alerting them, pinging, chiming, and crying for their attention.

Administrators agree banning phones on campus, some concerned with social media’s impact on student well-being

According to the EdWeek Research Center’s survey, 21 percent of principals agreed that cellphones should be banned on campus, as well as 14 percent of district leaders.

A 2022 Nature Communications study of over 17,000 teenagers and young adults suggests middle school students, in particular, are more vulnerable to the negative effects of social media.

Students have made their voices heard on the negative impacts of social media, from worsening grades to cyberbullying . Charles Longshore, assistant principal of Dothan Preparatory Academy in Dothan, Ala., has seen it firsthand with his 7th and 8th grade students.

Longshore blames cellphones for “seriously undermining” the climate of his school, causing him to spend more of his time dealing with phone-related disciplinary referrals and arguments. As a result, Longshore supports barring students from cellphone use during school hours.

Our population being in that rough transitional phase in their lives in general, what their minds are going through, their bodies are going through, socially what they are going through, [cellphones] were the ultimate distraction.

The school’s ban on cellphones stemmed from the serious distractions they presented for students in the classroom and on campus.

Social media is an important aspect of the cellphone use debate largely because, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey , 58 percent of teens ages 13-17 use TikTok daily, and around 50 percent use Snapchat and Instagram daily. As Dothan, Ala. administrators have seen , social media has become a source of public embarrassment and bullying among students.

In fact, a 2024 EdWeek Research Center survey found that 92 percent of educators believe social media has a somewhat negative to very negative impact on how students treat others in real life.

Students and parents weigh in on cellphone and social media bans

While many educators openly oppose students’ use of cellphones at school, some parents and students believe avoiding or restricting cellphone use may actually hurt students’ emotional and academic development.

Ava Havidic, a recent graduate of Millennium 6-12 Collegiate Academy in Tamarac, Fla., and a student facilitator for the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Student Leadership Network on Mental Health, believes preparing students for the future does not require banning their use of cellphones and social media.

Whether we put bans on social media, it's just going to make it harder for them to face those challenges in the future. For example, if they don't have access to [phones] in class, what about in college when they have the freedom to do that?

Trent Bowers, superintendent of the Worthington district in the Columbus, Ohio, metro area is a father of three and believes teachers and parents should have more engagement in crafting new policies. But he does agree with the positive implications of a cellphone ban.

As a dad of three daughters, one still in high school, I see real pluses and minuses for the time they spend on phones. Speaking as a dad, I wouldn't have minded for them not to have the ability to be on phones for six or seven hours a day because it would've just given them a break from that.

Some teachers and experts believe in a more balanced approach to cellphone bans

With rising phone ownership among students ages 8-18, some teachers don’t believe in challenging the use of cellphones in school.

Nicole Clemens, an English teacher at a central Missouri high school, believes educators need to come to terms with coexisting with phones. While Clemens teaches at the same high school her daughter went to in June 2022, she still finds it comforting to be able to reach her through a text.

There are so many teachers who are anti-cellphone, and I just think that that ship has sailed. You don’t have to like them, but you do have to figure out how to coexist with them.

Clemens believes students should be taught the importance of using their devices responsibly , instead of having them completely taken away.

According to research by Common Sense Media , 43 percent of children ages 8-12, and 88-95 percent of teenagers age 13-18 own a smartphone. In fact, about half of children in the United States own a smartphone by the time they are 11.

Dr. Michael Rich, a pediatrician and the director of the Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital, is concerned with cellphones being too much of a distraction, but believes schools should avoid banning them, as such a move can feel “threatening to parents” who want to be in contact with their children during school hours.

They’re building their own society. If you have Mom or Dad in your head all day long, [adolescents] never get to learn or practice taking care of themselves or being themselves in that environment.

Rich suggests a cellphone-free environment for students, without the restrictions of a ban, which could spark resistance from parents.

David Yeager, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, believes the struggle between educators and students over cellphones is making the problem worse. He said it’s important for educators to understand why cellphones and social media are so alluring to the adolescent brain.

If adults learn to see teenagers’ phone use in a more compassionate way, that our entire economy has squeezed this huge source of information about their social well-being into this tiny device, it’s totally reasonable for them to pay attention to that device.

Yeager also believes a ban is unnecessary and that “empathy from educators can go a long way,” given the idea that cellphone use is constantly seen as a sign of defiance or a student’s lack of impulse control .

A Colorado high school lifted its ban on cellphones and has decided to incorporate the devices into instruction. Chris Page, principal of Highlands Ranch High School in Highlands Ranch, Colo., feels cellphones present useful educational opportunities for students and educators.

There are 100,000 ways that kids use their cellphones and the other half of this is that it’s hard to tell a kid not to use their cellphone when the adult in front of them has to use theirs. We decided we just weren’t going to fight that fight anymore.

While Page encourages the students’ use of cellphones in the classroom, teachers create their own rules regarding their use. Page believes it’s his school’s responsibility to teach students how to manage their cellphone use to prepare them for college and work.

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Corporal Punishment — Corporal Punishment in Schools: A Controversial Discipline Method

Corporal Punishment in Schools: a Controversial Discipline Method

• Categories: Corporal Punishment Discipline

About this sample

Words: 861 |

Published: Jun 6, 2024

Words: 861 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Historical context and cultural perspectives, the case for corporal punishment, the case against corporal punishment, alternative approaches to discipline.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1154 words

3 pages / 1531 words

1 pages / 618 words

1 pages / 642 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Corporal Punishment

Should the death penalty be abolished? Essay on this question can be quite controversial, no matter what side of the argument is chosen. But it is important to understand the reasons why the death penalty should be abolished. [...]

Dupper, David R., and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus. “Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers.” Children and Schools, vol. 30, no. 4, 2008, pp. 243-250.Khanal, Jeevan, and Sae-Hoon [...]

As children grow, they are prone to some mistakes and bad behavior. These undesirable reactions result from the exposure to the new environments and their little knowledge what good behavior entails. It is the responsibility of [...]

In every child's life, there comes a phase where they test boundaries and assert their independence. This natural developmental stage often clashes with parental authority, leading to conflicts over discipline. While it's the [...]

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act also known as the ADA enacted to law. This act is a civil rights law that bans discrimination against people with disabilities in public as well as in the work place, educational [...]

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) is an international treaty which was drafted in 1950 in order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms within Europe. Many countries signed up to this convention including [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free