research topic about bullying brainly

Advertisement

Bullying: issues and challenges in prevention and intervention

• Published: 12 August 2023
• Volume 43 , pages 9270–9279, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Muhammad Waseem   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8720-955X 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Amanda B. Nickerson 4  

1169 Accesses

2 Citations

68 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Bullying is a public health issue that persists and occurs across several contexts. In this narrative review, we highlight issues and challenges in addressing bullying prevention. Specifically, we discuss issues related to defining, measuring, and screening for bullying. These include discrepancies in the interpretation and measurement of power imbalance, repetition of behavior, and perceptions of the reporter. The contexts of bullying, both within and outside of the school setting (including the online environment), are raised as an important issue relevant for identification and prevention. The role of medical professionals in screening for bullying is also noted. Prevention and intervention approaches are reviewed, and we highlight the need and evidence for social architectural interventions that involve multiple stakeholders, including parents, in these efforts. Areas in need are identified, such as understanding and intervening in cyberbullying, working more specifically with perpetrators as a heterogeneous group, and providing more intensive interventions for the most vulnerable youth who remain at risk despite universal prevention efforts.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Updated Perspectives on Linking School Bullying and Related Youth Violence Research to Effective Prevention Strategies

Bullying and Cyberbullying Throughout Adolescence

Data availability

This manuscript does not involve patient data. This is a review based on the published literature.

Allen, K. P. (2010a). A bullying intervention system in high school: A two-year school-wide follow-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36 (3), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.01.002

Article   Google Scholar  

Allen, K. P. (2010b). A bullying intervention system: Reducing risk and creating support for aggressive students. Preventing School Failure, 54 (3), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903496289

American Educational Research Association (2013). Prevention of bullying in schools, colleges, and universities: Research report and recommendations . https://www.aera.net/Education-Research/Issues-and-Initiatives/Bullying-Prevention-and-School-Safety/Bullying-Prevention

Axford, N., Bjornstad, G., Clarkson, S., Ukoumunne, O. C., Wrigley, Z., Matthews, J., Berry, V., & Hutchings, J. (2020). The effectiveness of the KiVa bullying prevention program in Wales, UK: Results from a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 21 (5), 615–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01103-9

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims & Offenders, 2 (2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880701263155

Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38 (1), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bauman, S. (2016). Do we need more measures of bullying? The Journal of Adolescent Health, 59 (5), 487–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.021

Bear, G. G., Mantz, L. S., Glutting, J. J., Yang, C., & Boyer, D. E. (2015). Differences in bullying victimization between students with and without disabilities. School Psychology Review, 44 (1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR44-1.98-116

Blake, J. J., Lund, E. M., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O. M., & Benz, M. R. (2012). National prevalence rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 27 (4), 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000008

Borgen, N. T., Olweus, D., Kirkebøen, L. J., Breivik, K., Solberg, M. E., Frønes, I., Cross, D., & Raaum, O. (2021). The potential of anti-bullying efforts to prevent academic failure and youth crime. A case using the Olweus bullying prevention program (OBPP). Prevention Science, 22 , 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01254-3

Bostic, J. Q., & Brunt, C. C. (2011). Cornered: An approach to school bullying and cyberbullying, and forensic implications. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 20 (3), 447–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2011.03.004

Bradshaw, C. P. (2015). Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039114

Camodeca, M., & Nava, E. (2022). The long-term effects of bullying, victimization, and bystander behavior on emotion regulation and its physiological correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37 (3–4), NP2056–NP2075. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934438

Carter, S. (2011). Bullies and power: A look at the research. Issues in Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 34 (2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.3109/01460862.2011.574455

Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The problem with overly broad definitions of bullying: Implications for the schoolhouse, the statehouse, and the ivory tower. Journal of School Violence, 13 (3), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2013.846861

Chen, Q., Zhu, Y., & Chui, W. H. (2021). A meta-analysis on the effects of parenting programs on bullying prevention. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22 (5), 1209–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020915619

Cheng, Y. Y., Chen, L. M., Ho, H. C., & Cheng, C. L. (2011). Definitions of school bullying in Taiwan: A comparison of multiple perspectives. School Psychology International, 32 (3), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313479694

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25 (2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020149

Cosgrove, H., & Nickerson, A. B. (2015). Anti-bullying/harassment legislation and educator perceptions of severity, effectiveness, and school climate: A cross-sectional analysis. Educational Policy, 31 (4), 518–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815604217

Dale, J., Russell, R., & Wolke, D. (2014). Intervening in primary care against childhood bullying: An increasingly pressing public health need. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107 (6), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076814525071

Deshmukh, P., & Kaplan, S. (2018). Bullying as a risk factor for inpatient hospitalization: Let’s change it! Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 57 (10), S260–S260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.09.397

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01564.x

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32 (3), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2003.12086206

Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 53 (2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.021

Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Van Ryzin, M. J., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Clinical trial of second step middle school program: Impact on bullying, cyberbullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual harassment perpetration. School Psychology Review, 44 (4), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-15-0052.1

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5 (1), 148. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2009.6

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2011). Bullying as a predictor of offending, violence and later life outcomes. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21 (2), 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.801

Felix, E. D., Sharkey, J. D., Green, J. G., Furlong, M. J., & Tanigawa, D. (2011). Getting precise and pragmatic about the assessment of bullying: The development of the California bullying victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 37 (3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20389

Fredrick, S. S., Nickerson, A. B., & Livingston, J. A. (2021). Family cohesion and the relations among peer victimization and depression: A random intercepts cross-lagged model. Development and Psychopathology, 34 (4), 1429–1446. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457942100016X

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41 (3), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 (2), 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013839

Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019a). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45 , 134–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M., & Farrington, D. (2019b). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 45 , 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001

Garandeau, C. F., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti-bullying program: A comparison of two approaches. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42 (6), 981–991. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1

Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). School bullies' intention to change behavior following teacher interventions: Effects of empathy arousal, condemning of bullying, and blaming of the perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17 (8), 1034–1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0712-x

Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2018). Decreases in the proportion of bullying victims in the classroom: Effects on the adjustment of remaining victims. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 42 (1), 64–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416667492

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0 . National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved October 23, 2021, from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf

Gómez Baya, D., Rubio Gónzalez, A., & Gaspar de Matos, M. (2018). Online communication, peer relationships and school victimisation: A one-year longitudinal study during middle adolescence. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 24 (2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2018.1509793

Good, C. P., McIntosh, K., & Gietz, C. (2011). Integrating bullying prevention into schoolwide positive behavior support. Teaching Exceptional Children, 244 , 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400106

Hagan, J. F., Shaw, J. S., & Duncan, P. M. (Eds.) (2017). Bright futures: Guidelines for health supervision of infants, children, and adolescents (4th Ed) . American Academy of Pediatrics. https://brightfutures.aap.org/Bright%20Futures%20Documents/BF4_Introduction.pdf

Hall, W. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8 (1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/690565

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz, M. F., & Ramirez, M. R. (2015). Associations between antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA Pediatrics, 169 (10), e152411. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2411

Hensley, V. (2015). Childhood bullying: Assessment practices and predictive factors associated with assessing for bullying by health care providers . University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved October 23, 2021 from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/nursing_etds/25

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Google Scholar  

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 (4), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003

Huang, Y., Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Hong, J. S. (2019). A meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs with a parent component. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 (1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-018-0002-1

Huitsing, G., Lodder, G. M. A., Browne, W. J., Oldenburg, B., Van der Ploeg, R., & Veenstra, R. (2020). A large-scale replication of the effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying program: A randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Prevention Science, 21 (5), 627–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01116-4

Hutson, E., Melnyk, B., Hensley, V., & Sinnott, L. T. (2019). Childhood bullying: Screening and intervening practices of pediatric primary care providers. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 33 (6), e39–e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2019.07.003

Ireland, J. L. (2000). "bullying" among prisoners: A review of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5 (2), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00031-7

Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying program for grades 1–9. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79 , 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025740

Kert, A. S., Codding, R. S., Tryon, G. S., & Shiyko, M. (2010). Impact of the word “bully” on the reported rate of bullying behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 47 (2), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20464

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (4), 1073–1137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035618

Koyanagi, A., Oh, H., Carvalho, A. F., Smith, L., Haro, J. M., Vancampfort, D., Stubbs, B., & DeVylder, J. E. (2019). Bullying victimization and suicide attempt among adolescents aged 12-15 years from 48 countries. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 58 (9), 907–918.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.10.018

Lereya, S. T., Copeland, W. E., Costello, E. J., & Wolke, D. (2015). Adult mental health consequences of peer bullying and maltreatment in childhood: Two cohorts in two countries. The Lancet Psychiatry, 2 (6), 524–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00165-0

Lund, E. M., & Ross, S. W. (2017). Bullying perpetration, victimization, and demographic differences in college students: A review of the literature. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18 (3), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015620818

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23 (1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26

Mishna, F. (2004). A qualitative study of bullying from multiple perspectives. Children & Schools, 26 (4), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/26.4.234

Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims & Offenders, 1 (3), 255–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880600626163

Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., Naylor, P., Barter, C., Ireland, J. L., & Coyne, I. (2009). Bullying in different contexts: Commonalities, differences, and the role of theory. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14 , 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.004

Morcillo, C., Ramos-Olazagasti, M. A., Blanco, C., Sala, R., Canino, G., Bird, H., & Duarte, C. S. (2015). Socio-cultural context and bullying others in childhood. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (8), 2241–2249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-0026-1

Moreno, M. A., Suthamjariya, N., & Selkie, E. (2018). Stakeholder perceptions of cyberbullying cases: Application of the uniform definition of bullying. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 62 (4), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.11.289

Musu, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2019). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2018 (NCES 2019–047/NCJ 252571). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf

Nelson, H. J., Burns, S. K., Kendall, G. E., & Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2019). Preadolescent children's perception of power imbalance in bullying: A thematic analysis. PLoS One, 14 (3), e0211124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211124

Nickerson, A. B. (2019). Preventing and intervening with bullying in schools: A framework for evidence-based practice. School Mental Health, 11 (4), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9221-8

Nickerson, A. B., Fredrick, S. S., Allen, K. P., & Jenkins, L. N. (2019). Social emotional learning (SEL) practices in schools: Effects on perceptions of bullying victimization. Journal of School Psychology, 73 , 74–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.03.002

Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2016). KiVa anti-bullying program in Italy: Evidence of effectiveness in a randomized control trial. Prevention Science, 17 (8), 1012–1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-016-0690-z

Office of the Surgeon General (2023). Social media and youth mental health: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf

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

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19 , 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012

Peeters, M., Cillessen, A. H., & Scholte, R. H. (2010). Clueless or powerful? Identifying subtypes of bullies in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39 (9), 1041–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9478-9

Pepler, D. J. (2006). Bullying interventions: A binocular perspective. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 15 (1), 16–20.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79 (2), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x

Perren, S., & Gutzwiller-Helfenfinger, E. (2012). Cyberbullying and traditional bullying in adolescence: Differential roles of moral disengagement, moral emotions, and moral values. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9 (2), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.643168

Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T. (2010). What characteristics of bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bullying to school officials? (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010–No. 092). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. August 2010. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northeast/pdf/REL_2010092_sum.pdf

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., & Pigott, T. D. (2012). A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41 (1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087375

Polanin, J. R., Espelage, D. L., Grotpeter, J. K., Ingram, K., Michaelson, L., Spinney, E., Valido, A., Sheikh, A. E., Torgal, C., & Robinson, L. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions to decrease cyberbullying perpetration and victimization. Prevention Science, 23 (3), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01259-y

Raman, S., Muhammad, T., Goldhagen, J., Seth, R., Kadir, A., Bennett, S., D'Annunzio, D., Spencer, N. J., Bhutta, Z. A., & Gerbaka, B. (2021). Ending violence against children: What can global agencies do in partnership? Child Abuse & Neglect, 119 (Pt 1), 104733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104733

Rettew, D. C., & Pawlowski, S. (2016). Bullying. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 25 (2), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chc.2015.12.002

Rideout, V. (2017). The Common-sense census: Media use by tweens and teens . Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/census_researchreport.pdf .

Rideout, V., & Robb, M. B. (2019). Social media, social life: Teens reveal their experiences . Common Sense Media. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/uploads/research/2019-census-8-to-18-key-findings-updated.pdf .

Rodkin, P. C., Espelage, D. L., & Hanish, L. D. (2015). A relational framework for understanding bullying: Developmental antecedents and outcomes. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038658

Ross, S. W., Horner, R. H., & Higbee, T. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42 (4), 747–759. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-747

Sabia, J. J., & Bass, B. (2017). Do anti-bullying laws work? New evidence on school safety and youth violence. Journal of Population Economics, 30 (2), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-016-0622-z

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 (2), 112–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2009.08.007

Singham, T., Viding, E., Schoeler, T., Arseneault, L., Ronald, A., Cecil, C. M., McCrory, E., Rijsdijk, F., & Pingault, J. B. (2017). Concurrent and longitudinal contribution of exposure to bullying in childhood to mental health: The role of vulnerability and resilience. JAMA Psychiatry, 74 (11), 1112–1119. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.2678

Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and the workplace: Are there any links? British Journal of Psychology, 94 (2), 175–188. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603321661868

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33 (4), 548–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086267

Solberg, M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus/bully victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29 (3), 239–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10047

Srabstein, J. C., & Leventhal, B. L. (2010). Prevention of bullying-related morbidity and mortality: A call for public health policies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88 (6), 403. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.10.077123

Stopbullying.gov. (2021). Laws, policies, and regulations . https://www.stopbullying.gov/resources/laws

Sullivan, T. N., Farrell, A. D., Sutherland, K. S., Behrhorst, K. L., Garthe, R. C., & Greene, A. (2023). Evaluation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in US urban middle schools using a multiple baseline experimental design. Prevention Science, 22 (8), 1134–1146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-021-01244-5

Swearer, S. M., Wang, C., Maag, J. W., Siebecker, A. B., & Frerichs, L. J. (2012). Understanding the bullying dynamic among students in special and general education. Journal of School Psychology, 50 (4), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.001

Thornberg, R. (2015). The social dynamics of school bullying: The necessary dialogue between the blind men around the elephant and the possible meeting point at the social ecological square. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics, 3 (1), 161–203. https://doi.org/10.3384/confero.2001-4562.1506245

Tiiri, E., Luntamo, T., Mishina, K., Sillanmäki, L., Brunstein Klomek, A., & Sourander, A. (2020). Did bullying victimization decrease after nationwide school-based antibullying program? A time-trend study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 59 (4), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.03.023

Troop-Gordon, W. (2017). Peer victimization in adolescence: The nature, progression, and consequences of being bullied within a developmental context. Journal of Adolescence, 55 , 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.012

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17 (5), 405–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Crago, R. V., & Theodorakis, N. (2016). School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 31 (1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000120

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32 (6), 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025408095553

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A theoretical redefinition. Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2014.09.001

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 166 (2), 149–156. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.755

Waseem, M., Paul, A., Schwartz, G., Pauzé, D., Eakin, P., Barata, I., Holtzman, D., Benjamin, L. S., Wright, J. L., Nickerson, A. B., & Joseph, M. (2017). Role of pediatric emergency physicians in identifying bullying. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 52 (2), 246–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2016.07.107

Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effects of the KiVa anti-bullying program on adolescents’ depression, anxiety, and perception of peers. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40 , 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-011-9562-y

Winding, T. N., Skouenborg, L. A., Mortensen, V. L., & Anderson, J. H. (2020). Is bullying in adolescence associated with the development of depressive symptoms in adulthood?: A longitudinal cohort study. BMC Psychology, 8 , 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00491-5

Xu, M., Macrynikola, N., Waseem, M., & Miranda, R. (2020). Racial and ethnic differences in bullying: Review and implications for intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50 , 101340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101340

Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51 (1), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031

Yeager, D. S., Fong, C., Lee, H., & Espelage, D. (2015). Declines in efficacy or anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: Theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 37 (1), 36–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.005

Zhang, Q., Cao, Y., & Tian, J. (2021). Effects of violent video games on aggressive cognition and aggressive behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 24 (1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-139260/v1

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lincoln Medical Center, 234 East 149th Street, Bronx, NY, 10451, USA

Muhammad Waseem

Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA

New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA

Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 428 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY, 14260-1000, USA

Amanda B. Nickerson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Waseem .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

We do not have any conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

N/A (It is a literature review).

Informed consent

N/A (it does not involve any patient involvement).

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Waseem, M., Nickerson, A.B. Bullying: issues and challenges in prevention and intervention. Curr Psychol 43 , 9270–9279 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05083-1

Download citation

Accepted : 02 August 2023

Published : 12 August 2023

Issue Date : March 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05083-1

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

• Intervention
• Cyberbullying
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Directions: Write a research title for each of the given topics and formulate the main objective and specific research question. Topic 1: Bullying in Schools Research Title: Research Objective: Research Questions: Topic 2: Covid-19 and the Community in the New Normal Research Title: Research Objective: Research Problem:​

• Bullying in schools

Research Title:

• Consequences of bullying in schools

Research objectives:

• Students can understand what bullying is.
• Students understand how bullying works.
• Students know that bullying may contribute to later difficulties with health and well-being.
• Students know the consequences of bullying in school.

Research question:

• What is bullying?
• How does bullying work?
• What are the effects of being bullied?
• How can we prevent kids to become a bully?

Covid-19 and the Community in the New Normal

• COVID-19 and the New Normal of Organizations and Employees
• Students can understand what the new normal is
• Students understand the impact of post-Covid-19
• Students know the adaptations after the Covid-19 attack
• Students are open to innovation in the new normal era
• What is the new normal era?
• What is the impact of post-Covid-19?
• What are adaptations after the Covid-19 attack?
• How can we settle in the new normal era?

Research Topic

The topic is the subject of discussion in research. A good topic must be able to include the entire content of the writing and answer the questions on the discussed issues. The main characteristic of the topic is

• General and has not been detailed described.
• One topic can be used in several titles.
• The topic is the actual content that will be presented in the research

Research Title

The title of the research is a statement that contains the entire content of a study related to the object of research to be studied, the location, goals, and objectives to be achieved. The original purpose of a title is to grab the reader's attention and draw attention to the issue. The main characteristic of the title is

• The title is a specific and detailed description of the topic
• Each research with the same topic must have a different titleThe title is more specific because it reflects the content of the scientific work

What is research brainly.ph/question/29179799

New questions in Integrated Science

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

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

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

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

105k Accesses

15 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Study outcome

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

Primary exposure

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

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

Statistical analyses

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

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

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

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Code availability

Not applicable.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Håkan Källmén

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

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

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
• MTSS Prevention Approaches and Effective Intervention

Prevention and Intervention: Multi-Tiered Approaches to Bullying

What is multi-tiered systems of support.

The Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) framework includes school-based interventions or services that address different “levels” of supports needed to deal with the range of learning, mental health, and emotional-behavioral health concerns that a student may have. It is also used in bullying prevention and intervention. Multi-tiered service delivery involves providing universal and selective prevention services, as well as indicated intervention services.

How does MTSS Work to Prevent Bullying?

Universal prevention.

Universal bullying prevention efforts, the first tier in the MTSS model, are designed to reduce risk and increase resilience for specific populations within a school community. These prevention strategies reach all students, regardless of their risk; and benefit the whole school community. Some of the most effective bullying prevention efforts work to improve the overall social and emotional climate of a school, and foster positive social or inclusive behavior among all students. Another prevention tactic schools can take is to hold classroom meetings that reinforce positive behavior expectations and provide guidance on how to respond to bullying. Services are designed to address student needs and academic challenges, and they are often supported by state or national educational initiatives (e.g., bully prevention curricula, positive behavioral intervention supports [PBIS], social emotional learning [SEL] ).

Research shows that both students and educators benefit from bullying prevention efforts. Results from a comprehensive and systematic review of research on the effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying show that they effectively reduce bullying by 20 to 23 percent and victimization by 17 to 20 percent.

Selective Prevention

The second tier in MTSS is an additional layer of support, where school staff delivers selective prevention and intervention services to youth who may have greater needs than those of the general student body who receive universal services. Selective interventions often focus on youth who are at higher risk of engaging in bullying or students who are at-risk for being the target of bullying. For youth who bully others, selective prevention may include reinforcing consequences for bullying, and using teacher or counselor mediation to deal with interpersonal conflict. To reduce the social benefits related to bullying, students may be encouraged to defend classmates who are the targets of bullying. For youth at-risk of being bullied, selective services may include assertiveness training and developing peer support groups.

There is growing empirical support for use of peer support groups and active bystander training for students who disrupt bullying incidents. One study found that peer and teacher support buffers against the negative impact of being bullied. Another study found that teacher support was associated with decreases in student-reported bullying. Several other studies suggest that preparing students to be active bystanders is one of the most effective ways to prevent or stop bullying when it is occurring.

How is MTSS used for effective intervention?

MTSS is effective for bullying intervention when youth with various academic, behavioral, and health needs are involved. The components of most MTSS intervention models include:

• Use of universal screening
• Early intervention service delivery
• Collaborative problem solving
• Progress monitoring
• Application of intervention services across different levels of intensity

Indicated Interventions

The third tier of multi-tiered service delivery involves implementing indicated interventions to students whose needs are not adequately addressed by the previous two tiers of service delivery. When third-tier interventions are provided, supports are more intense and tailored to specific needs, usually for a small number of students. These interventions often address mental health concerns, behavior issues, and academic performance. These may involve working with administrators, multiple teachers, school resource officers, family members, and others who have a strong impact on a student’s life. For example, a school-based mental health professional might use trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) – a type of mental health intervention used to reduce symptoms related to violence exposure – to help a student with emotional or behavioral concerns while coordinating with other school personnel to provide other academic and social supports. Although research on the specific use of indicated interventions for bullying is still emerging, a considerable body of research supports the use of these interventions for related problems and concerns in school settings, such as conflict with peers. The MTSS model enables educators and mental health professionals to provide a range of services to students who display varying degrees of risk, with flexibility in how they address the specific needs of students to support them in achieving inclusion and success.

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

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
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Rivara F, Le Menestrel S, editors. Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Sep 14.

Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 The Scope of the Problem

Although attention to bullying has increased markedly among researchers, policy makers, and the media since the late 1990s, bullying and cyberbullying research is underdeveloped and uneven. Despite a growing literature on bullying in the United States, a reliable estimate for the number of children who are bullied in the United States today still eludes the field ( Kowalski et al., 2012 ; Olweus, 2013 ). Estimates of bullying prevalence vary greatly, and there is little consensus on the value and accuracy of existing estimates.

This chapter describes the current state of research focused on estimating rates of bullying and cyberbullying in the United States and based on the findings from four major, federally funded, nationally representative samples. The committee considers overall trends in these prevalence estimates, as well as areas of inconsistencies and potential reasons for these discrepancies across the particular studies. The committee also draws upon other large-scale studies to provide insight into various demographic factors—such as gender, age, and ethnicity—as potential risk or protective factors for youth involvement in bullying. Although perceptions and interpretations of communications may be different in digital communities, the committee decided to address cyberbullying within a shared bullying framework rather than treating cyberbullying and traditional bullying as separate entities because there are shared risk factors, shared negative consequences, and interventions that work on both cyberbullying and traditional bullying. However, there are differences between these behaviors that have been noted in previous research, such as different power differentials, different perceptions of communication, and questions of how best to approach the issue of repetition in an online context. These differences suggest that although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) definition, developed in the context of traditional bullying, may not apply in a blanket fashion to cyberbullying, these two forms are not separate species. This chapter offers insights into the complexities and limitations of current estimates and underscores the challenges faced by policy makers, practitioners, advocates, and researchers. 1 Although exact estimates are challenging to identify and require more comprehensive measurement of bullying that addresses the current prevalence research limitations, it is clear that a sizable portion of youth is exposed to bullying.

Perspectives from the Field

“[Bullying is] emotionally, or mentally, or physically putting down someone and it happens everywhere, it never stops.”

—Young adult in a focus group discussing bullying (See Appendix B for additional highlights from interviews.)

• NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE STUDIES OF BULLYING IN THE UNITED STATES

Several national surveys provide insight into the prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying in the United States. In this section, the committee focuses specifically on the School Crime Supplement (SCS) of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey, and the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) because their samples of youth are nationally representative and epidemiologically defined. The committee notes that there are a number of methodological differences in the samples and measurement across the four studies. The prevalence of bullying behavior at school ranged from 17.9 percent to 30.9 percent, whereas the prevalence of cyberbullying ranged from 6.9 percent to 14.8 percent of youth ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ; Finkelhor et al., 2015 ; Iannotti, 2013 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; see Table 2-1 for a summary of these nationally representative surveys and Appendix C for detailed results from these surveys). The discussion below considers in greater detail the strengths and weaknesses of the methods employed by each of these surveys, in an effort to elucidate factors that may contribute to the variation in reported prevalence rates.

Comparison of Current National Data Sources on Bullying for School-Aged Children and Adolescents.

School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey

The SCS is a national survey of 4,942 students ages 12 through 18 in U.S. public and private elementary, middle, and high schools as well as home-schooled youth ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). Created as a supplement to the NCVS and co-designed by the Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, the SCS survey collects information about victimization, crime, and safety at school ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). The survey was designed to assist policy makers as well as academic researchers and practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels so they can make informed decisions concerning crime in schools. NCVS crime data come from surveys administered by field representatives to a representative sample of households in the United States throughout the year in person and over the phone ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). 2 In 2015, the SCS administration tested two different ways of asking about bullying to better align with the CDC definition of bullying.

The SCS asked students a number of key questions about their experiences with and perceptions of crime and violence that occurred inside their school, on school grounds, on a school bus, or on the way to or from school. 3 Additional questions not included in the NCVS were added to the SCS, such as students' self-reports of being bullied and perceived rejection at school. This survey's approach to bullying and cyberbullying is far more intensive than the other national surveys; however, it is limited by its focus exclusively on reports of being bullied (being a target of bullying behavior), with no information on perpetration. Additional information is also available regarding differences in rates of being bullied and cyberbullied by student characteristics such as gender, race and ethnicity, school and grade level, school enrollment, geographic region, eligibility for reduced-price lunch, household income, and student-teacher ratio. Other characteristics of the events assessed include whether or not an adult was notified of the bullying incident, injury, frequency of bullying, form of bullying, and location of the bullying ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). The SCS data showed that in 2013, 21.5 percent of students ages 12-18 were bullied on school property and 6.9 percent of students were cyberbullied anywhere ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; see Appendix C , Tables C-1 through C-3 ). 4

Although the SCS provides the most recent and in-depth assessment of bullying and cyberbullying prevalence in the United States, it has several major limitations. The questions about being bullied or cyberbullied are only included in the SCS, a supplement to the NCVS; therefore, its sample size is only a fraction of that of the larger NCVS. 5 The SCS and NCVS data, similar to the other national datasets, are voluntary self-report surveys. These surveys focused on students ages 12-18 and on their experience being bullied; data are not available from younger children and from children who have bullied others or children who have witnessed bullying instances. The survey also fails to address rates of bullying among various subpopulations of youth, such as groups differentiated by their sexual orientation or gender identity, by weight status, or by religious minorities.

School-Based Youth Risk Behavior Survey

The YRBS is one component of the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), an epidemiological surveillance system developed by the CDC to monitor the prevalence of youth behaviors that most influence health ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ). The YRBS is conducted biennially and focuses on priority health-risk behavior established during youth (grades 9-12) that result in the most significant mortality, morbidity, disability, and social problems during both youth and adulthood. 6 State and local education and health agencies are permitted to supplement the national survey to meet their individual needs.

National YRBS

Bullying and cyberbullying estimates include responses by student characteristics, such as gender, race and ethnicity, grade level, and urbanicity of the school. 7 , 8 The data showed that 19.6 percent of children ages 14-18 were bullied on school property and 14.8 percent of children ages 14-18 were electronically bullied ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ; see Appendix C , Table C-4 ). The data captured by the national YRBS reflect self-report surveys from students enrolled in grades 9-12 at public or private schools. As with the other nationally representative samples, it does not identify many subpopulations that are at increased risk for bullying such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and overweight children. The YRBS gathers information from adolescents approximately ages 14-17; but it offers no nationally representative information on younger children ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ). The survey gathers information on Hispanic, black, and white students but does not identify other races and ethnicities.

State and Local YRBS

The YRBSS is the only surveillance system designed to monitor a wide range of priority health risk behavior among representative samples of high school students at the state and local levels as well as the national level ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ). 9 There is a smaller sample of middle school youth that is included in various state YRBS results, but national-level estimates are not available. The 2014 CDC report includes state- and local-level surveys conducted by 42 states and 21 large urban school districts. Of the 42 states that conducted their own YRBS survey, 26 asked questions about bullying and cyberbullying. 10 The state-specific results for bullying prevalence ranged from a high of 26.3 percent in Montana to a low of 15.7 percent in Florida ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ). Whereas this state-level high is relatively similar to the prevalence of 19.6 percent reported by the national YRBS, the state-level low is less than a third of the national prevalence. For cyberbullying, the state results ranged from a high of 20.6 percent in Maine to a low of 11.9 percent in Mississippi. The national YRBS cyberbullying prevalence of 14.8 percent is about in the middle of these extremes ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ).

At this time, the available state and local data are highly variable due to major limitations caused by self-reports, variable definitions of bullying, and the limited age range of students, making it difficult to gauge differences in bullying prevalence among states and in comparison to national estimates.

The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Survey

The HBSC survey is an international study that generally addresses youth well-being, health behavior, and their social context ( Iannotti, 2013 ). This research is conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, and the survey is administered every 4 years in 43 countries and regions across Europe and North America. The HBSC survey collects data on a wide range of health behaviors, health indicators, and factors that may influence them. These factors are primarily characteristics of the children themselves, such as their psychological attributes and personal circumstances, and characteristics of their perceived social environment, including their family relationships, peer-group associations, school climate, and perceived socioeconomic status ( Iannotti, 2013 ).

The most recent survey focused solely on the United States was conducted in the 2009-2010 school year. The 2009-2010 HBSC survey included questions about nutrition; physical activity; violence; bullying; relationships with family and friends; perceptions of school as a supportive environment; and use of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drugs ( Iannotti, 2013 ). 11 , 12 Regarding bullying and cyberbullying, the HBSC asked questions only about the frequency with which children were bullied in the “past couple of months,” with follow-up questions about the frequency of a certain type of bullying a student experienced (called names or teased, left out of things, kicked or pushed, etc.). The survey found that 30.9 percent of children ages 10-16 were bullied at school and 14.8 percent of children ages 10-16 were bullied using a computer or e-mail ( Iannotti, 2013 ; see Appendix C , Tables C-6 and C-7 ). 13 The survey is the only nationally representative survey that asked students how often they bullied another student and the type of bullying they carried out. It found that 31.8 percent of students bullied others and 14.0 percent of students cyberbullied other children ( Iannotti, 2013 ). It is the only national survey that asked students to report on the reason they thought they were bullied (e.g., how often were you bullied for your race/color?; how often were you bullied for your religion?). (For additional detail, see Appendix C , Tables C-6 and C-7 ). Nevertheless, like the other surveys reviewed here, the HBSC survey is limited by the nature of self-reported and voluntary data from minors, as well as by its decision to limit questions only to frequency of incidents.

National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence

The National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence II (NatSCEV II) was designed to obtain up-to-date incidence and prevalence estimates for a wide range of childhood victimizations ( Finkelhor et al., 2015 ). The first such assessment, the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence I (NatSCEV I), was conducted in 2008. This updated assessment, conducted in 2011, asked students to report on 54 forms of offenses against them. The offenses include sexual assault, child maltreatment, conventional crime, Internet victimization, peer and sibling victimization, witnessing victimization, and indirect victimization ( Finkelhor et al., 2015 ). 14 While this survey asked questions regarding bullying-type incidents, many of the questions referred to the offenses as “assault” rather than bullying, which typically includes a wider scope of victimization. It addressed these offenses by age and gender of the child who was bullied. NatSCEV II found that 17.9 percent of children ages 1 month to age 17 had experienced an assault by a nonsibling peer, 1.8 percent of children had experienced a bias assault, and 6.0 percent experienced Internet/cell phone harassment ( Finkelhor et al., 2015 ; see Appendix C , Table C-5 ). It is not clear whether Internet or cell phone harassment meets the CDC definition of bullying.

Trends over Time

Although attention to bullying and cyberbullying has increased, the extent to which rates of bullying have changed in recent years is unclear ( Figures 2-1 and 2-2 ) ( Kowalski et al., 2012 ; Limber, 2014 ). As illustrated in Figure 2-1 , data from the SCS-NCVS indicate a sharp reduction in the percentage of 12-18 year olds who reported being bullied at school—from 27.8 percent to 21.5 percent in just 2 years ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ).

Trends in bullying over time as reported by national surveys. NOTES: HBSC = Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children; NatSCEV = National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence, NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey; SCS = School Crime Supplement (more...)

Trends in cyberbullying over time as reported by national surveys. NOTES: HBSC = Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children; NatSCEV = National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence, NCVS = National Crime Victimization Survey; SCS = School Crime Supplement (more...)

While the YRBS and NatSCEV mirror this decline, neither found so large a change ( Finkelhor et al., 2015 ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ; see Figure 2-1 ). Findings from the HBSC survey show an increase in bullying among 11-, 13-, and 15-year-old youth in the United States of about 1 percentage point between 2006 and 2010 ( Iannotti, 2013 ). As illustrated in Figure 2-2 , the trend in cyberbullying over time is even less clear. According to the SCS-NCVS data, the percentage of students ages 12-18 who were cyberbullied doubled between 2001 and 2007 but declined by 2 percentage points between 2011 and 2013 ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). 15 While the HBSC survey and the YRBS also showed a decline in the percentage of students who have been cyberbullied, the NatSCEV showed an increase in the percentage of students who experienced Internet and/or cell phone harassment (see Figure 2-2 ).

Because the available national trend data are limited in the range of years for which data are available and because findings vary somewhat among the major national samples, it is difficult to gauge the extent to which bullying may have increased or decreased in recent years. Additional data points will be necessary to determine national trends in the prevalence rates for children and youth who are bullied.

• EXISTING ESTIMATES OF BULLYING IN THE UNITED STATES BY SUBPOPULATION

In an effort to understand the nature and extent of bullying in the United States, some studies have examined specific subpopulations or subsets of children involved in bullying incidents. Because the major national surveys that include bullying do not uniformly or fully address the bullying experience of subpopulations of interest, 16 in this section the committee also draws upon findings from meta-analyses and independent large-scale research. Although these studies are limited by inconsistent definitions, survey data based on self-reports, differing age ranges, and a lack of questions seeking responses from children who have bullied or have witnessed bullying incidents, they do provide valuable insight into particular risk factors or protective factors for involvement in bullying, insights that are generally not available from the surveys of nationally representative samples. The committee expands on risk and protective factors in Chapter 3 .

Prevalence of Bullying by Age

A majority of bullying research has shown that children's experiences with bullying vary significantly according to their age. Decreases with age in rates of being bullied were reported in the SCS.

As reported by Limber (2014) , a meta-analysis by Cook and colleagues (2010) found that the likelihood of both being bullied and perpetrating bullying behavior peaked in the early adolescent years (ages 12-14) before decreasing slightly in later adolescence ( Limber, 2014 ). Decreases with increasing grade level in rates of being bullied were also reported in the SCS-NCVS.

For example, whereas 27.8 percent of sixth graders reported being bullied at school in 2013, 23.0 percent of ninth graders and 14.1 percent of twelfth graders said they had been bullied ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; see Figure 2-3 ). Although these data suggest that the overall chances of being bullied are particularly likely in middle childhood, children are more or less likely to be involved in specific forms of bullying at different ages, depending on their verbal, cognitive, and social development ( Limber, 2014 ).

Prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying among students, ages 12-18, by grade level, as reported by the 2013 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Education (2015).

Reports of being bullied through an electronic context appear to peak later than reports of being bullied by a more traditional context; the SCS, for example, reported a peak for cyberbullying in tenth grade ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). According to a 2015 overview of teen's social media and technology use, the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of teens ages 13-14 had access to a smartphone and 84 percent had access to a desktop or laptop computer, whereas 76 percent of teens ages 15-17 had access to a smartphone and 90 percent had access to a desktop or laptop computer ( Lenhart et al., 2015 ). Today's youth are often referred to as “digital natives” due to their upbringing immersed in technological tools including smartphones and social media, while adults are often referred to as “digital immigrants.” This report found that approximately three-fourths of teens ages 13-17 reported access to a cell phone and 94 percent of teens reported going online daily, including 24 percent who said they go online “almost constantly” ( Lenhart et al., 2015 ). Owning a mobile phone allows for ongoing access to the Internet, including social media and other communication tools that may foster opportunities for bullying. Approximately one-quarter of teens surveyed described themselves as “constantly connected” to the Internet ( Lenhart et al., 2015 ). Among teens 13-17 years old, most reported using several forms of social media including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter (see Figure 2-4 ). A previous study found that older adolescents viewed Facebook as a powerful source of influence through four major processes: connection to others, comparison with peers, building an online identity, and an immersive multimedia experience ( Moreno et al., 2013 ).

Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat top social media platforms for teens (n = 1,060 teens ages, 13-17). SOURCE: Adapted from Lenhart (2015, p. 2)

This increasing access to and use of technologies with age may help explain rising rates of cyberbullying as adolescents age. An older study of 10-17 year olds found an “online harassment” prevalence of approximately 9 percent ( Wolak et al., 2007 ). However, a more recent study, which focused on middle school adolescents, found a lower prevalence of cyberbullying: 5 percent reported being a perpetrator of cyberbullying, and 6.6 percent reported being a target of cyberbullying ( Rice et al., 2015 ).

Smith and colleagues (2008) found rates of cyberbullying to be lower than rates of traditional bullying, but appreciable, and reported higher cyberbullying prevalence outside of school than inside. It is possible that reported cyberbullying rates are lower than traditional bullying rates because much of technology use occurs outside of school and current approaches to measuring bullying are designed mostly to assess rates of traditional bullying in school ( Smith et al., 2008 ). Previous work has suggested that increased Internet use is associated with increased risk for cyberbullying ( Juvonen and Gross, 2008 ).

Although research has suggested that the prevalence of bullying among older adolescents is lower than that of younger adolescents, researchers have proposed that cyberbullying among older students may represent a continuation of behaviors from previous grades but with a focus on technological tools for more subtle bullying techniques ( Cowie et al., 2013 ).

Prevalence of Bullying by Gender

Research has confirmed that there are gender differences in the frequency with which children and youth are involved in bullying. A recent meta-analysis found that although boys and girls experienced relatively similar rates of being bullied, boys were more likely to bully others, or to bully others and be bullied, than girls were ( Cook et al., 2010 ; Limber, 2014 ). Research has suggested that there are gender differences in the frequency with which children and youth are involved in bullying. The SCS, YRBS, and NatSCEV found that rates for self-reports of being bullied range from 19.5 to 22.8 percent for boys and from 12.8 to 23.7 percent for girls ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ; Finkelhor et al., 2015 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). All three of these national surveys found that girls were more likely to report being bullied than were boys (see Figure 2-5 for SCS data).

Prevalence of being bullied among 12-18 year olds by gender, as reported by the 2013 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Education (2015).

Research has suggested similarities and differences, beyond just overall frequency, in how often boys and girls experience different forms of bullying ( Felix and Green, 2010 ). As noted in Chapter 1 , there are two modes of bullying (direct and indirect) as well as different types of bullying (physical, verbal, relational, and damage to property). As illustrated in Figure 2-6 , being made fun of or called names and being the subject of rumors are the two most common forms of bullying experienced by children and youth, and both are much more frequently experienced than physical bullying ( Iannotti, 2013 ; Limber, 2014 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). For example, the 2013 SCS found that 13.2 percent of youth ages 12-18 reported being the subject of rumors and 13.6 percent said they had been made fun of, called names, or insulted, compared with 6.0 percent who reported being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on ( U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; see Figure 2-6 ). Notions of gendered forms of bullying are common because physical aggression has been regularly associated with boys, whereas relational aggression has been considered to be the domain of girls ( Oppliger, 2013 ). For example, studies have shown that indirect aggression is normative for both genders, while boys are more strongly represented in physical and verbal aggression (see review by Card et. al., 2008). As for differences in different forms of cyberbullying, according to the 2013 SCS, girls experienced a higher prevalence of being bullied in nearly all types, except for receiving unwanted contact while playing online games and facing purposeful exclusion from an online community ( Limber, 2014 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; see Figure 2-7 ). However, because there is not yet a common definition of cyberbullying, there is no agreement on what forms of online harassment fall under the umbrella term of “cyberbullying.”

Prevalence of different types of bullying among students, ages 12-18, bullied in a school year, as reported by the 2013 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Education (2015).

Prevalence of different types of cyberbullying among students, ages 12-18, bullied in a school year, as reported by the 2013 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Education (2015).

Limber and colleagues (2013) observed that age trends for self-reports of bullying others varied for boys and girls. Among boys, bullying others increased from grades 3 through 12, but among girls, rates of bullying others peaked in eighth grade ( Limber et al., 2013 ). Among older adolescents and college students, cyberbullying may be more common than traditional bullying. Prevalence rates of cyberbullying among young adults and college students have been estimated to be around 10-15 percent ( Kraft and Wang, 2010 ; Schenk and Fremouw, 2012 ; Wensley and Campbell, 2012 ).

Prevalence of Bullying by Race and Ethnicity

There has been only limited research on the roles that race and ethnicity may play in bullying ( Larochette et al., 2010 ; Peskin et al., 2006 ; Spriggs et al., 2007 ). 17 Data from the SCS indicate that the percentage of students who reported being bullied at school in 2013 was highest for white students (23.7%) and lowest for Asian students (9.2%), with rates for black students (20.3%) and Hispanic students (19.2%) falling between (see Figure 2-8 ; data from U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ). Data from the national YRBS were highest for white students (21.8%), next highest for Hispanic students (17.8%), and lowest for black students (12.7%) ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014b ). The YRBS data did not include any other ethnicities/races.

Prevalence of being bullied and cyberbullied among students, ages 12-18, by race/ethnicity, as reported by the 2013 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey. SOURCE: Data from U.S. Department of Education (2015).

It is challenging to interpret the percentages of children and youth who are bullied across different racial and ethnic groups, due to the limited information currently available on racial and ethnic differences in definitions of bullying and on whether and how bullying may vary according to the racial/ethnic diversity and density of schools and communities. See Chapter 3 for a discussion of contextual factors, including the school and community contexts, and their modulation of the relations between individual characteristics and prevalence of involvement in and consequences of bullying by race/ethnicity.

• DISPARITIES IN BULLYING PREVALENCE IN THE UNITED STATES AMONG VULNERABLE GROUPS

In addition to exploring standard demographic differences in bullying (i.e., gender, age, race/ethnicity), researchers have identified specific populations that are at increased risk for being bullied. This section reviews the research on groups for which there is consistent epidemiologic evidence of disparities in being the target of bullying, including LGBT youth, overweight/obese youth, and youth with disabilities. The committee also identified groups for which the evidence of increased risk is not currently consistent and which therefore warrant greater research attention ( U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2012 ). In this chapter, we report descriptive data on prevalence rates; see Chapter 3 for a discussion of factors that contribute to these disparities in rates of bullying (e.g., stigma) as well as research evidence on specific forms of bullying (e.g., bias-based bullying) that are more likely to occur among some of the groups covered in this section.

Differences in Bullying by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

LGBT youth, youth questioning their sexuality, and youth who do not conform to gender stereotypes frequently face bullying by their peers ( Eisenberg and Aalsma, 2005 ; Espelage et al., 2008 ; Garofalo et al., 1998 ; Rivers, 2001 ; Russell et al., 2014 ). The prevalence of bullying of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) males and females ranges from 25.6 percent to 43.6 percent ( Berlan et al., 2010 ).

Most research on bullying related to sexual orientation and gender identity comes from nonprobability samples. For example, the 2003 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey found that 42.0 percent of sexual-minority youth reported being bullied in the 12 months prior to survey administration ( Hanlon, 2004 ). Similarly, the cross-sectional analysis of the 2001 questionnaire from the Growing Up Today study, a national longitudinal study involving 7,559 youths (ages 14-22) who were children of nurses participating in the Nurses' Health study found that the prevalence of bullying victimization was lowest in heterosexual female respondents (15.9%) and highest in gay male respondents (43.6%) ( Berlan et al., 2010 ). Girls identifying as “mostly heterosexual” and “mostly bisexual” were at increased risk for perpetrating bullying compared to heterosexual girls, while boys identifying as gay were less likely to perpetrate bullying than were heterosexual boys ( Berlan et al., 2010 ).

A growing body of research has aimed to assess the experiences of transgender youth specifically. The existing quantitative research suggests that most transgender youth experience regular bullying and harassment at school ( Grant et al., 2011 ; Kosciw et al., 2012 ; McGuire et al., 2010 ). For instance, in a sample of 5,542 adolescents sampled online, 82 percent of the transgender or gender nonconforming youth reported any bullying experience in the past 12 months, compared to 57 percent among cisgender boys and girls ( Reisner et al., 2015 ). 18

Measures of sexual orientation—including sexual attraction, sexual behavior, and sexual identity—have been recently incorporated into large surveillance systems, such as some state and local versions of the YRBSS, which have provided population-based estimates of bullying among LGB youth. Two of CDC's large surveillance systems—School Health Profiles and the School Health Policies and Practices studies—assess school health policies and practices relevant to LGB students including the prohibition of harassment and bullying ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a ). The results from these sources provide a means to assess sexual-orientation differences in bullying perpetration and victimization among youth by location within the United States ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014a ). 19 Recent analyses by Olsen and colleagues (2014) were conducted by creating two datasets: one that combined 2009-2011 YRBS data from 10 states (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and the other that combined YRBS data from 10 school districts (Boston, Chicago, District of Columbia, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, San Diego, San Francisco, and Seattle). Adjusted prevalence rates for being bullied on school property were lowest for both heterosexual boys and girls (18.3% and 19.9%, respectively, based on the state dataset; 11.4% and 11.8%, respectively, based on the district dataset) and highest among gay boys (43.1% and 25.7%, respectively, based on the state and district datasets) and bisexual boys (35.2% and 33.2%, respectively, based on the state and district datasets) ( Olsen et al., 2014 ). Rates of being bullied on school property were intermediate for the lesbian girls (29.5% in the state dataset, and 14.0% in the district dataset) and bisexual girls (35.3% in the state dataset, and 18.8% in the district dataset).

Given the absence of measures of gender identity disaggregated from sex in these large state and local datasets, population-based estimates of the prevalence of bullying among transgender youth are not currently available. However, recent research has conducted cognitive testing to determine the most reliable and valid way of assessing gender identity among both adults ( GenIUSS Group, 2013 ) and youth (e.g., Conron et al., 2008 ). Further, population-based datasets have very recently begun to include measures of gender identity among youth (e.g., the 2013-2014 California Healthy Kids Survey), which will enable researchers to examine gender identity–related disparities in bullying using representative samples of youth.

Using data from the first wave (1994-1995 school year) of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which included 10,587 youth between 13 and 18, Russell and colleagues (2002) examined differences in experiencing, witnessing, and perpetrating violence, depending on the respondent's self-reported category of romantic attraction (same-sex, both-sex, or other-sex), a measure of sexual orientation. Youth who reported same-sex or both-sex attraction were more likely to experience and perpetrate the most dangerous forms of violence (e.g., pulling a gun or knife on someone, shooting or stabbing someone) and to witness violence ( Russell et al., 2002 ). These findings were not disaggregated by sex or gender identity.

Differences in Bullying Among Youth with Disabilities

Much of the existing data suggests that students with disabilities are overrepresented within the bullying dynamic ( McLaughlin et al., 2010 ; Rose, 2015 ; Rose et al., 2010 ), whether as children who have bullied ( Rose et al., 2009 ), children who have been bullied ( Blake et al., 2012 ; Son et al., 2012 ), or children who have both bullied and have been bullied ( Farmer et al., 2012 ). 20 Specifically, national prevalence data suggest that students with disabilities, as a whole, are up to 1.5 times more likely to be bullied than youth without disabilities ( Blake et al., 2012 ); this disproportionate bullying begins in preschool ( Son et al., 2012 ) and continues through adolescence ( Blake et al., 2012 ; Rose, 2015 ).

However, variability exists in reported prevalence rates of involvement for various subgroups of youth with disabilities. For example, Rose and colleagues (2015) conducted a prevalence study of a large sample of youth with and without disabilities in middle and high school ( n = 14,508) and determined that 35.3 percent of students with emotional and behavioral disorders, 33.9 percent of students with autism spectrum disorders, 24.3 percent of students with intellectual disabilities, 20.8 percent of students with another health impairment, and 19.0 percent of students with specific learning disabilities experienced high levels of victimization. In addition, 15.3 percent of youth with emotional and behavioral disorders, 19.4 percent of youth with autism spectrum disorders, 24.1 percent of youth with intellectual disabilities, 16.9 percent of youth with other health impairment, and 14.4 percent of youth with specific learning disabilities perpetrated bullying behavior. These estimates are in contrast to 14.5 percent of youth without disabilities who experienced high rates of being bullied and 13.5 percent who engaged in high rates of perpetration. The authors of this study acknowledge that the study has a number of limitations—mainly self-report, cross-sectional data, and data that were examined at the group level.

This literature on bullying and disabilities has several inconsistencies, which stem from differences in three basic factors: (1) measurement and definition, (2) disability identification, and (3) comparative groups. For instance, separating subclasses of youth with specific typographies of learning disabilities proves difficult, resulting in the general assessment of a combined class of specific learning disabilities ( Rose, 2015 ). This confounding factor leads to conflicting measures of bullying involvement, with some studies suggesting that rates of bullying perpetration are relatively comparable among youth with and without disabilities ( Rose et al., 2015 ), while others found that students with specific learning disabilities were almost six times more likely to engage in bully perpetration than their peers without disabilities ( Twyman et al., 2010 ). These conflicting results suggest further assessment or disaggregation of subgroups of youth with specific learning disabilities may be necessary to better understand bullying involvement among this subpopulation of youth.

Differences in Bullying by Weight Status

Weight status, specifically being overweight or obese, can be a factor in bullying among children and youth ( Puhl and Latner, 2007 ). The CDC defines childhood overweight as a body mass index (BMI) at or above the 85th percentile and below the 95th percentile of a CDC-defined reference population of the same age and sex. It defines childhood obesity as a BMI at or above the 95th percentile of this reference population for the same age and sex ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015b ).

In 2012, 31.8 percent of U.S. children and youth 6 to 19 years of age were overweight or obese, using the CDC weight status categories. Eighteen percent of children 6 to 11 and 21 percent of youth 12 to 19 years of age were obese ( Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015a ). Although the 2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data showed a decrease in obesity rates for children 2 to 5 years of age, the obesity rates for 2-19-year olds between 2003-2004 and 2011-2012 remained unchanged at 31.8 percent ( Ogden et al., 2014 ). Thus, weight-based bullying can affect a substantial number of youth.

In 2007, Puhl and Latner reviewed the growing literature on social marginalization and stigmatization of obesity in children and adolescents, paying attention to the nature and extent of weight bias toward overweight youth and the primary sources of stigma in their lives, including peers. 21 The researchers found that existing studies on weight stigma suggest that experiences with various forms of bullying is a common experience for overweight and obese youth; however, determining specific prevalence rates of bias is difficult because various assessment methods are used across the literature ( Puhl and Latner, 2007 ). For example, Neumark-Sztainer and colleagues (2002) examined the prevalence of weight-based teasing among middle and high school students ( n = 4,746) and found that 63 percent of girls at or above the 95th percentile for BMI and 58 percent of boys at or above the 95th percentile for BMI experienced “weight-based teasing.” However, in a recent longitudinal study of weight-based teasing ( n = 8,210), Griffiths and colleagues (2006) found that 34 percent of girls at or above the 95th percentile for BMI and 36 percent of boys at or above the 95th percentile for BMI reported being victims of “weight-based teasing and various forms of bullying” ( Griffiths et al., 2006 ). Griffiths and colleagues (2006) found that obese boys and girls were more likely to be victims of overt bullying one year later.

Janssen and colleagues (2004) found that among 5,749 children, ages 11-16, girls with a higher BMI were more likely to be targets of bullying behavior than their average-weight peers. They found that the likelihood of these girls being targeted in verbal, physical, and relational bullying incidents only increased as BMI rose. Among boys, however, the researchers found no significant associations between BMI and physical victimization. When they looked at the older portion of the sample, they found that among 15-16-year-old boys and girls, BMI was positively associated with being the perpetrator of bullying behavior compared with BMI among average-weight children ( Puhl and Latner, 2007 ). In this sample of 15 and 16 year olds, girls still faced an increased likelihood of both being bullied and being a perpetrator of bullying ( Puhl and Latner, 2007 ).

In their review of the literature on peer victimization and pediatric obesity, Gray and colleagues (2009) summarized evidence since 1960 on stigmatization, marginalization, and peer victimization of obese children. They concluded that obesity in children and youth places them at risk for harmful physical, emotional, and psychosocial effects of bullying and similar types of peer mistreatment. They also noted that “over time, a cyclical relationship may emerge between obese individuals and victimization such that children who are victimized are less likely to be active, which in turn leads to increased weight gain and a greater likelihood of experiencing weight-based victimization” ( Gray et al., 2009 , p. 722).

In summary, although numerous studies indicate that overweight and obese youth are at increased risk of being bullied, it can be difficult to attribute weight-based bullying to a single physical attribute, given that being overweight or obese often co-exists with other factors (see also the subsection below on “Youth with Intersectional Identities”). Additional research is needed to identify the relative importance of weight as a reason for being bullied or being a perpetrator of bullying among children and youth.

Other Disparity Groups Requiring More Research

Although most research on groups that are at disproportionate risk for bullying has focused on LGBT youth, overweight/obese youth, or youth with disabilities, some recent research has begun to identify other groups that may be at heightened risk. 22 Because this research is in its early stages, the evidence is not yet compelling on whether these groups do experience disparities in perpetrating or being targeted by bullying behavior. Consequently, the committee highlights the following groups as warranting further study to establish their risk status.

Socioeconomic Status

The literature on socioeconomic status and bullying contains conflicting results. Higher socioeconomic status has been associated with higher levels of perpetration ( Barboza et al., 2009 ; Shetgiri et al., 2012 ) but so has lower socioeconomic status ( Christie-Mizell et al., 2011 ; Garner and Hinton, 2010 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Jansen et al., 2011 , 2012 ; Nordhagen et al., 2005 ; Pereira et al., 2004 ; Schwartz et al., 1997 ). Other studies found that socioeconomic status was not associated with perpetration ( Flouri and Buchanan, 2003 ; Zimmerman et al., 2005 ).

The evidence for an association between socioeconomic status and being bullied is similarly inconsistent. Specifically, some studies found that neither economic deprivation ( Wilson et al., 2012 ), family income ( Garner and Hinton, 2010 ), nor general socioeconomic status ( Magklara et al., 2012 ) predicted greater risk of being targeted by bullying behavior. Other studies found that insufficient parental income ( Lemstra et al., 2012 ) and low social class ( Pereira et al., 2004 ) predicted increased rates of being the target in bullying incidents. These conflicting results may be due in part to different measures and conceptualizations of socioeconomic status. In addition, other environmental or social–ecological factors that are often not included in evaluative models may account for the differences in these findings. For example, Barboza and colleagues (2009) argued that perpetration emerges as a function of social climate deficits, where social supports may mediate perpetration regardless of demographic characteristics, including socioeconomic status. Thus, further research is warranted on the mediating and moderating variables in the association between socioeconomic status and either bullying perpetration or being targeted for bullying. (See Chapter 3 for a more detailed discussion of moderation.)

Immigration Status

The results to date from research on the association between immigration status and bullying involvement are inconsistent. For example, Lim and Hoot (2015) investigated the bullying involvement of third and sixth grade students who were immigrants, refugees, or native born. The majority of these students who were refugees or immigrants came from Burma, Burundi, Iraq, Somalia, Thailand, and Yemen. The refugees and immigrants did not report higher levels of being bullied than the native-born American students. However, qualitative data suggested that youth with refugee status responded as “nonpassive victims,” meaning they would try to defend themselves when physically attacked, whereas immigrants and native-born youth who were bullied responded to bullying more passively. The inconsistencies in the results may be associated with age of the respondents, total sample size, nationality of the immigrants/refugees, or other environmental or social–ecological factors ( Hong et al., 2014 ), all of which require greater attention in future studies.

Minority Religious Affiliations

Few studies have specifically investigated the bullying involvement of youth from minority religious groups. However, evidence from other areas of violence suggests that youth from religious minorities may experience higher rates of being bullied than those who identify as Christians. For instance, the percentage of hate crimes in the United States that are grounded in religious affiliation has increased from 10 percent in 2004 to 28 percent in 2012 ( Wilson, 2014 ). Since schools are reflective of society as a whole, and bullying involvement is grounded in a social–ecological context that includes community and societal factors ( Hong and Espelage, 2012 ), this targeting of religious minorities may carry over into the school environment. However, this hypothesis requires empirical documentation.

Youth with Intersectional Identities

As noted in the earlier discussion of weight status as a factor in bullying, “intersectionality” refers to individuals with multiple stigmatized statuses (e.g., black lesbian youth). The majority of studies on bullying perpetration and targeting have examined identity groups in isolation, but there is increasing acknowledgement that multiple intersecting identities can exacerbate or attenuate health outcomes (e.g., Bowleg, 2008 ; McCall, 2005 ). An exception is the study by Garnett and colleagues (2014) , which analyzed the intersectionality of weight-related bullying with bullying for other reasons. Among 965 Boston youth sampled in the 2006 Boston Youth Survey, participants had been discriminated against or bullied (or assaulted) for any of four attributes (race or ethnicity, immigration status, perceived sexual orientation, and weight). Participants who were bullied for their race and weight had higher rates of being targeted for bullying behavior, compared with students who had two or more of the other characteristics ( Garnett et al., 2014 ). As discussed earlier, the extent to which intersecting identities affect the prevalence of bullying perpetration and targeting remains largely unknown and therefore represents an important area for future study.

Children and adolescents have mostly stated that the differences in their physical appearance contribute to the possibility of their being bullied ( Lunde et al., 2007 ). There is concern that students with characteristics, such as obesity, disabilities, food allergies, and gender issues could put them directly in the path of being more likely to be bullied ( Schuster and Bogart, 2013 ). These categories may intersect at the micro level of individual experience to reflect multiple interlocking systems of privilege and oppression at the macro, social-structural level ( Bowleg, 2012 ).

Is bullying more prevalent in urban schools than in suburban or rural schools? Because large-city urban schools are often located in inner-city areas of concentrated poverty and exposure to violence, theories of social disorganization suggest that bullying might be more common in such contexts ( Bradshaw et al., 2009 ). However, there is not much research in support of this hypothesis. Rural students have self-reported at least as much bullying in their schools as did urban youth ( Dulmus et al., 2004 ; Stockdale et al., 2002 ). Moreover, data from large national studies in the United States indicate that students in rural schools report somewhat more bullying than those in urban and suburban schools ( Nansel et al., 2001 ; Robers et al., 2013 ). In particular Robers and colleagues (2013) found, using 2011 National Center for Education Statistics data, that 25 percent of students in urban schools reported some bullying, compared with 29 percent in suburban schools and 30 percent in rural schools. One reason that has been suggested for this difference is that smaller rural schools, some of which have fewer school transitions (e.g., lacking a separate middle school between elementary and high school grades), may typically consolidate social reputations and provide fewer opportunities for targeted youth to redefine how they are perceived by peers ( Farmer et al., 2011 ).

What may differ by urbanicity of schools are the reasons for targeting certain individuals in a pattern of bullying behavior. For example, Goldweber and colleagues (2013) documented that urban African American youth were more likely to report race-based bullying by peers than were rural or suburban youth. As noted above in the section on “Prevalence of Bullying by Race and Ethnicity,” the connection between experiences of peer bullying and racial discrimination merits further study.

• ISSUES IN DEVELOPING ESTIMATES OF BULLYING IN THE UNITED STATES

Current efforts to estimate prevalence of bullying and cyberbullying behavior are characterized by disagreement and confusion. This chapter has pointed out the major challenges associated with generating accurate and reliable estimates of bullying and cyberbullying rates in the United States. The issues to be addressed are summarized here in terms of definitional issues and issues of measurement and sampling.

Definitional Issues

As attention to bullying behavior has grown in recent years, concerns have been raised that efforts to characterize bullying vary considerably and that a lack of a consistent definition “hinders our ability to understand the true magnitude, scope, and impact of bullying and track trends over time” ( Gladden et al., 2014 , p. 1). One such approach to measuring bullying includes providing an explicit definition or explanation of what is meant by bullying to study participants. In contrast, some approaches simply use the word “bullying” but do not define it, whereas others list specific behaviors that constitute bullying without using the term “bullying” ( Gladden et al., 2014 ; Sawyer et al., 2008 ). Even if the definition is provided, researchers must assume that respondents (who are often children) fully understand the broad and difficult concept of bullying—including its elements of hostile intent, repetition, and power imbalance and its various forms—when answering. However, research has shown that this level of comprehension might not be uniformly present for children of all age groups and cultures ( Monks and Smith, 2006 ; Smith et al., 2002 ; Strohmeier and Toda, 2008 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ). For instance, 8-year-old children consider fewer negative behavior options to be bullying than do 14-year-old adolescents ( Smith et al., 2002 ). Furthermore, children hold very different definitions of bullying from those held by researchers. Bullying may also be understood and defined differently in different languages and cultures ( Arora, 1996 ). Smith and colleagues (2002) showed that terms used in different cultures differed remarkably in their meanings. For example, some terms captured verbal aggression, while others were connected instead with physically aggressive acts or with social exclusion. These definitional issues are also relevant to cyberbullying, as there is no uniform definition used across studies.

There is still a lot of variability when it comes to defining bullying: Parents, children, and schools or medical professionals can mean a wide range of different things when they use the term “bullying.” Bullying varies in different developmental stages, and we should acknowledge that it is not always obvious. Even so, bullying can be characterized as the kind of behavior that would actually be considered harassment if the people involved were over age 18. However you look at it, a standardized definition would help us more precisely target bullying behavior and consequences while avoiding misunderstandings.

—Summary of themes from service providers/community-based providers focus group (See Appendix B for additional highlights from interviews.)

Measurement and Sampling Issues

Measuring bullying and cyberbullying is very difficult. The variability in prevalence rates reflects a number of measurement and sampling issues. First, studies reporting prevalence rates of bullying problems may rely on different data sources, such as peer versus teacher nominations or ratings, observations by researchers, or self-report questionnaires. Particularly with children, the self-report strategy poses a unique problem in regard to possible underreporting or overreporting ( Solberg, 2003 ). Some children who bully other students will choose not to respond honestly on the relevant questionnaire items for fear of retribution from adults. To date, a majority of information is gathered via self-reports, which have limitations; however, the committee does not believe that official reports are necessarily a better or more reliable source of information. The committee also acknowledges that for studies examining the prevalence of bullying by a certain demographic category, such as obesity or sexual orientation, it is not possible to say who is the “most bullied” by comparing students with one set of demographic characteristics with other students with different demographic characteristics.

Second, research suggests that the approach to measuring bullying does affect the pattern of responses and in turn may influence the prevalence rates. For example, a study of over 24,000 elementary, middle, and high school age youth found significantly higher prevalence rates for bullying when it was assessed using a behavior-based approach (i.e., asking about the experience of specific forms and acts of bullying) than when it was measured using a definition-based approach ( Sawyer et al., 2008 ). A similar pattern occurs for cyberbullying, For example, one study used a definition that read “repeatedly [trying] to hurt you or make you feel bad by e-mailing/e-messaging you or posting a blog about you on the Internet (MySpace).” This study found the prevalence of cybervictimization to be 9 percent ( Selkie et al., 2015 ). Another study asked about “the use of the Internet, cell phones and other technologies to bully, harass, threaten or embarrass someone” and found cybervictimization prevalence to be 31 percent ( Pergolizzi et al., 2011 ).

Third, studies may differ with regard to the reference period used in measuring bullying. For example, a question may refer to a whole school year or one school term, the past couple of months, or over a lifetime. Response and rating categories may vary in both number and specificity as well. Such categories may consist of a simple yes or no dichotomy; of various applicability categories such as “does not apply at all” and “applies perfectly”; or of relatively vague frequency alternatives ranging from “seldom” to “very often” or from “not at all in the past couple of months” to “several times a week.”

Fourth, some studies use different criteria for differentiating students who have been bullied and students who have not, as well as students who have and have not bullied others. This variation in identification makes prevalence rates difficult to compare ( Solberg, 2003 ). A majority of studies do not ask questions about children who have bullied or children who have been bystanders, instead focusing on children who have been bullied. Taken together, these findings suggest that researchers need to be cautious about interpreting their findings in light of their measurement approach.

Estimates of bullying inform an evidence-based understanding about the extent of the problem and bring attention to the need to address the problem and allocate the funding to do so. Prevalence estimates provide information for policy makers, identify where education is needed, identify vulnerable populations, and help direct assistance and resources. As this chapter has explained, generating reliable estimates for the number of children who have bullied and the number who have been bullied is not an easy task. In some cases, the task is extraordinarily difficult. For example, existing research suggests disparities in rates of bullying by a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation, disability, and obesity, mostly due to the lack of nationally representative data on these and other vulnerable groups. Bullying must be understood as a social problem characterized by numerous challenges to estimating its prevalence and the conditions associated with it. In summary, based on its review of the available evidence, the committee maintains that, despite the current imperfect estimates, bullying and cyberbullying in the United States is clearly prevalent and therefore worthy of attention.

• FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Finding 2.1: Estimates of bullying and cyberbullying prevalence reported by national surveys vary greatly, ranging from 17.9 percent to 30.9 percent of school-age children for the prevalence of bullying behavior at school and from 6.9 percent to 14.8 percent for the prevalence of cyberbullying. The prevalence of bullying among some groups of youth is even higher. For instance, the prevalence of bullying of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth is approximately double that of heterosexual and cisgender youth. Finding 2.2: The extent to which rates of bullying and cyberbullying have changed in recent years is unclear. Finding 2.3: The four major national surveys that include bullying do not uniformly address all age groups and school levels. Finding 2.4: A majority of prevalence data collection is done through self-reports or observation. Finding 2.5: A majority of national studies do not ask questions about children who have bullied or children who have been bystanders. Finding 2.6: Many studies differ with regard to the reference period used in measuring bullying behavior (e.g., last month versus last 12 months). Finding 2.7: Studies use different definitional criteria for differentiating students who have been bullied and cyberbullied and students who have not, as well as students who bully and cyberbully and students who do not. Finding 2.8: Existing research suggests that there are disparities in rates of bullying by a variety of characteristics, including sexual orientation, disability, and obesity. However, there is a lack of nationally representative data on these and other vulnerable groups. Future research is therefore needed to generate representative estimates of bullying, including bias-based and discriminatory bullying, to accurately identify disparity groups.

Conclusions

Conclusion 2.1: Definitional and measurement inconsistencies lead to a variation in estimates of bullying prevalence, especially across disparate samples of youth. Although there is a variation in numbers, the national surveys show bullying behavior is a real problem that affects a large number of youth. Conclusion 2.2: The national datasets on the prevalence of bullying focus predominantly on the children who are bullied. Considerably less is known about perpetrators, and nothing is known about bystanders in that national data. Conclusion 2.3: Cyberbullying should be considered within the context of bullying rather than as a separate entity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition should be evaluated for its application to cyberbullying. Although cyberbullying may already be included, it is not perceived that way by the public or by the youth population. Conclusion 2.4: Different types of bullying behaviors—physical, relational, cyber—may emerge or be more salient at different stages of the developmental life course. Conclusion 2.5: The online context where cyberbullying takes place is nearly universally accessed by adolescents. Social media sites are used by the majority of teens and are an influential and immersive medium in which cyberbullying occurs.

• Arora CM. Defining bullying towards a clearer general understanding and more effective intervention strategies. School Psychology International. 1996; 17 (4):317–329.
• Barboza GE, Schiamberg LB, Oehmke J, Korzeniewski SJ, Post LA, Heraux CG. Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological perspective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2009; 38 (1):101–121. [ PubMed : 19636795 ]
• Berlan ED, Corliss HL, Field AE, Goodman E, Austin SB. Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the Growing Up Today study. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2010; 46 (4):366–371. [ PMC free article : PMC2844864 ] [ PubMed : 20307826 ]
• Blake JJ, Lund EM, Zhou Q, Kwok OM, Benz MR. National prevalence rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly. 2012; 27 (4):210. [ PubMed : 23294235 ]
• Bowleg L. When black + lesbian + woman ≠ black lesbian woman: The methodological challenges of qualitative and quantitative intersectionality research. Sex Roles. 2008; 59 (5-6):312–325.
• Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health. 2012; 102 (7):1267–1273. [ PMC free article : PMC3477987 ] [ PubMed : 22594719 ]
• Bradshaw CP, Sawyer AL, O'Brennan LM. A social disorganization perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: The influence of school context. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2009; 43 (3-4):204–220. [ PubMed : 19333749 ]
• Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development. 2008; 79 (5):1185–1229. [ PubMed : 18826521 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2010; 59 (SS-5):1–142. [ PubMed : 20520591 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2012; 61 (4):1–162. [ PubMed : 22673000 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. LGBTQ Youth Programs at a Glance. 2014a. [December 2015]. http://www ​.cdc.gov/lgbthealth ​/youth-programs.htm .
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014b; 63 (4):1–169. [ PubMed : 24918634 ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Childhood Obesity Facts. 2015a. [November 2015]. http://www ​.cdc.gov/healthyschools ​/obesity/facts.htm .
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Defining Childhood Obesity. 2015b. [November 2015]. http://www ​.cdc.gov/obesity ​/childhood/defining.html .
• Christie-Mizell CA, Keil JM, Laske MT, Stewart J. Bullying behavior, parents' work hours, and early adolescents' perceptions of time spent with parents. Youth & Society. 2011; 43 (4):1570–1595.
• Conron KJ, Scout N, Austin SB. “Everyone has a right to, like, check their box”: Findings on a measure of gender identity from a cognitive testing study with adolescents. Journal of LGBT Health Research. 2008; 4 (1):1–9. [ PubMed : 19860014 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim T. Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective. Jimerson SR, Swearer SM, Espelage DL, editors. New York: Routledge; 2010. pp. 347–362. (Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimization).
• Cowie H, Bauman S, Coyne I, Myers C, Pörhölä M, Almeida A. Cyberbullying Through the New Media: Findings from an International Network. Smither PK, Steffgen G, editors. London, UK: Psychology Press; 2013. pp. 165–177. (Cyberbullying amongst university students).
• DeVoe JF, Bauer L. Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results from the 2007 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2010. (NCES 2010-319).
• DeVoe JF, Bauer L. Student Victimization in U.S. Schools: Results from the 2009 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2011.
• Dulmus CN, Theriot MT, Sowers KM, Blackburn JA. Student reports of peer bullying victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis. 2004; 7 (1):1–16.
• Eisenberg ME, Aalsma MC. Bullying and peer victimization: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2005; 36 (1):88–91. [ PubMed : 15661606 ]
• Espelage DL, Aragon SR, Birkett M, Koenig BW. Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review. 2008; 37 (2):202–216.
• Farmer TW, Hamm JV, Leung MC, Lambert K, Gravelle M. Early adolescent peer ecologies in rural communities: Bullying in schools that do and do not have a transition during the middle grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2011; 40 (9):1106–1117. [ PubMed : 21667294 ]
• Farmer TW, Petrin R, Brooks DS, Hamm JV, Lambert K, Gravelle M. Bullying involvement and the school adjustment of rural students with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2012; 20 (1):19–37.
• Felix ED, Green JG. Handbook of Bullying in Schools. An International Perspective. Jimerson SR, Swearer SM, Espelage DL, editors. New York: Routledge; 2010. pp. 173–185. (Popular girls and brawny boys).
• Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby S, Kracke K. Children's Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2012. [June 2016]. https://www ​.ncjrs.gov ​/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/248444.pdf .
• Finkelhor D, Turner HA, Shattuck A, Hamby SL. Violence, Crime, and Abuse Exposure in a National Sample of Children and Youth: An Update. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2015. [June 2016]. http://www ​.ojjdp.gov/pubs/248547.pdf .
• Flouri E, Buchanan A. The role of mother involvement and father involvement in adolescent bullying behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003; 18 (6):634–644.
• Garner PW, Hinton TS. Emotional display rules and emotion self-regulation: Associations with bullying and victimization in community-based after school programs. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 2010; 20 (6):480–496.
• Garnett BR, Masyn KE, Austin SB, Miller M, Williams DR, Viswanath K. The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying among youth: An applied latent class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2014; 43 (8):1225–1239. [ PubMed : 24318776 ]
• Garofalo R, Wolf RC, Kessel S, Palfrey J, DuRant RH. The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics. 1998; 101 (5):895–902. [ PubMed : 9565422 ]
• GenIUSS Group. Gender-Related Measures Overview. The Williams Institute; 2013. [April 2016]. http: ​//williamsinstitute ​.law.ucla.edu/wp-content ​/uploads/GenIUSS-Gender-relatedQuestion-Overview.pdf .
• Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD. 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; 2014.
• Glew GM, Fan MY, Katon W, Rivara FP, Kernic MA. Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2005; 159 (11):1026–1031. [ PubMed : 16275791 ]
• Goldweber A, Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP. Examining associations between race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2013; 42 (2):206–219. [ PubMed : 23095907 ]
• Grant JM, Mottet L, Tanis JE, Harrison J, Herman J, Keisling M. Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality; 2011. [October 2015]. http://www ​.thetaskforce ​.org/static_html/downloads ​/reports/reports/ntds_full.pdf .
• Gray WN, Kahhan NA, Janicke DM. Peer victimization and pediatric obesity: A review of the literature. Psychology in the Schools. 2009; 46 (8):720–727.
• Griffiths LJ, Wolke D, Page AS, Horwood J. Obesity and bullying: Different effects for boys and girls. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2006; 91 (2):121–125. [ PMC free article : PMC2082670 ] [ PubMed : 16174642 ]
• Hanlon BM. 2003 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results. Malden: Massachusetts Department of Education; 2004.
• Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012; 17 (4):311–322.
• Hong JS, Peguero AA, Choi S, Lanesskog D, Espelage DL, Lee NY. Social ecology of bullying and peer victimization of Latino and Asian youth in the United States: A review of the literature. Journal of School Violence. 2014; 13 (3):315–338.
• Iannotti RJ. Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), 2005-2006. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2012.
• Iannotti RJ. Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), 2009-2010. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2013.
• Jansen DE, Veenstra R, Ormel J, Verhulst FC, Reijneveld SA. Early risk factors for being a bully, victim, or bully/victim in late elementary and early secondary education. The Longitudinal Trails Study. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11 (1):1–7. [ PMC free article : PMC3128024 ] [ PubMed : 21645403 ]
• Jansen PW, Verlinden M, Dommisse-van Berkel A, Mieloo C, van der Ende J, Veenstra R, Verhulst FC, Jansen W, Tiemeier H. Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter? BMC Public Health. 2012; 12 (1):1–10. [ PMC free article : PMC3575320 ] [ PubMed : 22747880 ]
• Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004; 113 (5):1187–1194. [ PubMed : 15121928 ]
• Juvonen J, Gross EF. Extending the school grounds?—Bullying experiences in cyberspace. Journal of School Health. 2008; 78 (9):496–505. [ PubMed : 18786042 ]
• Kosciw JG, Greytak EA, Bartkiewicz MJ, Boesen MJ, Palmer NA. The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Our Nation's School. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2012.
• Kowalski RM, Limber SP, Agatston PW. Cyberbullying: Bullying in the Digital Age. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
• Kraft E, Wang J. An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and cyberstalking experiences and factors related to victimization of students at a public liberal arts college. International Journal of Technoethics. 2010; 1 (4):74–91.
• Larochette AC, Murphy AN, Craig WM. Racial bullying and victimization in Canadian school-age children: Individual and school level effects. School Psychology International. 2010; 31 (4):389–408.
• Lemstra ME, Nielsen G, Rogers MR, Thompson AT, Moraros JS. Risk indicators and outcomes associated with bullying in youth aged 9-15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique. 2012; 103 (1):9–13. [ PMC free article : PMC6973964 ] [ PubMed : 22338321 ]
• Lenhart A, Duggan M, Perrin A, Stepler R, Rainie H, Parker K. Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015. 2015. [September 2015]. http://www ​.pewinternet ​.org/files/2015/04 ​/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf .
• Lim SJJ, Hoot JL. Bullying in an increasingly diverse school population: A socioecological model analysis. School Psychology International. 2015
• Limber SB. Bullying Among Children and Youth. Department of Psychology and Institute on Family and Neighborhood Life, Clemson University, SC; 2014. (Unpublished manuscript of a study commissioned by the Planning Committee on Increasing Capacity for Reducing Bullying and Its Impact on the Lifecourse of Youth Involved).
• Limber SB, Olweus D, Luxenberg H. Bullying in U.S. Schools 2012 Status Report. Center City, MN: Hazelden Foundation; 2013.
• Lunde C, Frisén A, Hwang CP. Ten-year-old girls' and boys' body composition and peer victimization experiences: Prospective associations with body satisfaction. Body Image. 2007; 4 (1):11–28. [ PubMed : 18089248 ]
• Magklara K, Skapinakis P, Gkatsa T, Bellos S, Araya R, Stylianidis S, Mavreas V. Bullying behaviour in schools, socioeconomic position, and psychiatric morbidity: A cross-sectional study in late adolescents in Greece. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2012; 6 (8):2–13. [ PMC free article : PMC3298787 ] [ PubMed : 22325708 ]
• McCall L. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 2005; 30 (3):1771–1800.
• McGuire JK, Anderson CR, Toomey RB, Russell ST. School climate for transgender youth: A mixed-method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2010; 39 (10):1175–1188. [ PubMed : 20428933 ]
• McLaughlin C, Byers R, Vaughn R. Responding to Bullying among Children with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities. London, UK: Anti-Bullying Alliance; 2010.
• Monks CP, Smith PK. Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2006; 24 (4):801–821.
• Moreno MA, Kota R, Schoohs S, Whitehill JM. The Facebook influence model: A concept mapping approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2013; 16 (7):504–511. [ PMC free article : PMC3715786 ] [ PubMed : 23621717 ]
• Nansel TR, Overpeck M, Pilla RS, Ruan WJ, Simons-Morton B, Scheidt P. Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2001; 285 (16):2094–2100. [ PMC free article : PMC2435211 ] [ PubMed : 11311098 ]
• Neumark-Sztainer D, Falner N, Story M, Perry C, Hannan PJ, Mulert S. Weight-teasing among adolescents: Correlations with weight status and disordered eating behaviors. International Journal of Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders. 2002; 26 (1):123–131. [ PubMed : 11791157 ]
• Nordhagen R, Nielsen A, Stigum H, Köhler L. Parental reported bullying among Nordic children: A population-based study. Child: Care, Health and Development. 2005; 31 (6):693–701. [ PubMed : 16207227 ]
• Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2014; 311 (8):806–814. [ PMC free article : PMC4770258 ] [ PubMed : 24570244 ]
• Olsen EOM, Kann L, Vivolo-Kantor A, Kinchen S, McManus T. School violence and bullying among sexual minority high school students, 2009-2011. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2014; 55 (3):432–438. [ PubMed : 24768163 ]
• Olweus D. School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2013; 9 :751–780. [ PubMed : 23297789 ]
• Oppliger PA. Bullies and Mean Girls in Popular Culture. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company; 2013.
• Pereira B, Mendonca D, Neto C, Valente L, Smith PK. Bullying in Portuguese schools. School Psychology International. 2004; 25 (2):241–254.
• Pergolizzi F, Pergolizzi J, Gan Z, Macario S, Pergolizzi JV, Ewin T, Gan TJ. Bullying in middle school: Results from a 2008 survey. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health. 2011; 23 (1):11–18. [ PubMed : 21721358 ]
• Peskin M, Tortolero SR, Markham CM. Bullying and victimization among black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence. 2006; 41 :467, 484. [ PubMed : 17225662 ]
• Puhl RM, Latner JD. Stigma, obesity, and the health of the nation's children. Psychological Bulletin. 2007; 133 (4):557. [ PubMed : 17592956 ]
• Reisner SL, Greytak EA, Parsons JT, Ybarra ML. Gender minority social stress in adolescence: Disparities in adolescent bullying and substance use by gender identity. Journal of Sex Research. 2015; 52 (3):243–256. [ PMC free article : PMC4201643 ] [ PubMed : 24742006 ]
• Rice E, Petering R, Rhoades H, Winetrobe H, Goldbach J, Plant A, Montoya J, Kordic T. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among middle school students. American Journal of Public Health. 2015; 105 (3):e66–e72. [ PMC free article : PMC4330864 ] [ PubMed : 25602905 ]
• Rivers I. The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates. Educational and Child Psychology. 2001; 18 (1):32–46.
• Robers S, Kemp J, Truman J. Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education; 2013. (NCES 2013-036/NCJ 241446).
• Rose CA. Bullying and Vulnerable Populations: Exploring Predictive and Protective Factors Associated with Disproportionate Representation. Department of Special Education, University of Missouri; Columbia: 2015. (Unpublished manuscript of a study commissioned by the Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention).
• Rose CA, Espelage DL, Monda-Amaya LE. Bullying and victimisation rates among students in general and special education: A comparative analysis. Educational Psychology. 2009; 29 (7):761–776.
• Rose CA, Monda-Amaya LE, Espelage DL. Bullying perpetration and victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education. 2010; 32 :114–130.
• Rose CA, Simpson CG, Moss A. The bullying dynamic: Prevalence of involvement among a large-scale sample of middle and high school youth with and without disabilities. Psychology in the Schools. 2015; 52 (5):515–531.
• Russell ST, Driscoll AK, Truong N. Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. American Journal of Public Health. 2002; 92 (2):198–202. [ PMC free article : PMC1447042 ] [ PubMed : 11818291 ]
• Russell ST, Everett BG, Rosario M, Birkett M. Indicators of victimization and sexual orientation among adolescents: Analyses from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. American Journal of Public Health. 2014; 104 (2):255–261. [ PMC free article : PMC3935664 ] [ PubMed : 24328633 ]
• Sawyer AL, Bradshaw CP, O'Brennan LM. Examining ethnic, gender, and developmental differences in the way children report being a victim of “bullying” on self-report measures. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2008; 43 :106–114. [ PubMed : 18639783 ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schenk AM, Fremouw WJ. Prevalence, psychological impact, and coping of cyberbully victims among college students. Journal of School Violence. 2012; 11 (1):21–37.
• Schuster MA, Bogart LM. Did the ugly duckling have PTSD? Bullying, its effects, and the role of pediatricians. Pediatrics. 2013; 131 (1):e288–e291. [ PMC free article : PMC3529957 ] [ PubMed : 23266921 ]
• Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Development. 1997; 68 (4):665–675. [ PubMed : 9306645 ]
• Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among U.S. middle and high school age adolescents: A systematic review and quality assessment. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2015; 58 (2):125–133. [ PMC free article : PMC4724486 ] [ PubMed : 26576821 ]
• Shetgiri R, Lin H, Flores G. Identifying children at risk for being bullies in the United States. Academic Pediatrics. 2012; 12 (6):509–522. [ PMC free article : PMC3501605 ] [ PubMed : 22989731 ]
• Smith PK, Cowie H, Olafsson RF, Liefooghe AP, Almeida A, Araki H, del Barrio C, Costabile A, Dekleva B, Houndoumadi A. Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development. 2002; 73 (4):1119–1133. [ PubMed : 12146737 ]
• Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2008; 49 (4):376–385. [ PubMed : 18363945 ]
• Solberg ME. Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior. 2003; 29 (3):239–268.
• Son E, Parish SL, Peterson NA. National prevalence of peer victimization among young children with disabilities in the United States. Children and Youth Services Review. 2012; 34 (8):1540–1545.
• Spriggs AL, Iannotti RJ, Nansel TR, Haynie DL. Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer, and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007; 41 (3):283–293. [ PMC free article : PMC1989108 ] [ PubMed : 17707299 ]
• Stockdale MS, Hangaduambo S, Duys D, Larson K, Sarvela PD. Rural elementary students', parents', and teachers' perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior. 2002; 26 (4):266–277. [ PubMed : 12081359 ]
• Strohmeier D, Toda Y. Cross-National Similarities and Differences. The Extent to Which Bullying and Victimisation Are Similar, or Show Differences, Across Cultures, Especially Western and Eastern Cultures. Wurzburg, Germany: Jul, 2008. (Paper presented at the preconference “Victimisation in Children and Youth,” 20th Biennial Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development).
• Twyman KA, Saylor CF, Saia D, Macias MM, Taylor LA, Spratt E. Bullying and ostracism experiences in children with special health care needs. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics. 2010; 31 (1):1–8. [ PubMed : 20081430 ]
• U.S. Department of Education. Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results from the 2011 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington DC: Author; 2013.
• U.S. Department of Education. Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results from the 2013 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Washington DC: Author; 2015. [April 2015]. http://nces ​.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015056.pdf .
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Health Resources and Services Administration. Maternal and Child Health Bureau. Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), 2001-2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2008.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office. School Bullying-Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed. Washington, DC: Author; 2012.
• Vaillancourt T, McDougall P, Hymel S, Krygsman A, Miller J, Stiver K, Davis C. Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2008; 32 (6):486–495.
• Wensley K, Campbell M. Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young university students' involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 2012; 15 (12):649–654. [ PubMed : 23078337 ]
• Wilson ML, Bovet P, Viswanathan B, Suris JC. Bullying among adolescents in a sub-Saharan middle-income setting. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2012; 51 (1):96–98. [ PubMed : 22727084 ]
• Wilson MM. Hate Crime Victimization 2004-2012 Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2014. [November 2015]. http://www ​.bjs.gov/content ​/pub/pdf/hcv0412st.pdf .
• Wolak J, Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D. Does online harassment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2007; 41 (6):S51–S58. [ PubMed : 18047945 ]
• World Health Organization. Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC), 1997-1998. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research; 2003.
• Zimmerman FJ, Glew GM, Christakis DA, Katon W. Early cognitive stimulation, emotional support, and television watching as predictors of subsequent bullying among grade-school children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2005; 159 (4):384–388. [ PubMed : 15809395 ]

Additional information about strategies for overcoming these limitations can be found in Chapter 7 .

Households are selected through a stratified, multistage, cluster sampling process. Households in the sample are designed to be representative of all households as well as noninstitutionalized individuals ages 12 or older.

For the SCS, being “bullied” includes students being made fun of, called names, or insulted; being the subject of rumors; being threatened with harm; being pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; being pressured into doing things they did not want to do; being excluded from activities on purpose; and having property destroyed on purpose. “At school” includes the school building, school property, school bus, or going to and from school. Missing data are not shown for household income.

In 1995 and 1999, “at school” was defined for respondents as in the school building, on the school grounds, or on a school bus. In 2001, the definition for “at school” was changed to mean in the school building, on school property, on a school bus, or going to and from school.

The NCVS has a nationally representative sample of about 90,000 households comprising nearly 160,000 persons, whereas the sample size of the SCS is just 4,942 students.

The YRBS uses a cluster sampling design to produce a nationally representative sample of the students in grades 9-12 of all public and private school students in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The 2014 YRBS does not clarify whether this includes school events held off campus or the children's journey to and from school.

Electronically bullied includes being bullied through e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, Websites, or texting.

Each state-based and local-school-based YRBS employs a two-stage, cluster sample design to produce representative samples of students in grades 9-12 in the survey's jurisdiction.

States and cities could modify the national YRBS questionnaire for their own surveys to meet their needs.

The student survey was administered in a regular classroom setting to participating students by a school representative (e.g., teacher, nurse, guidance counselor, etc.).

Three versions of the self-report questionnaire were administered: one for fifth and sixth graders; one for students in seventh, eighth, and ninth grade; and one for students in tenth grade. The tenth grade questionnaire contained the complete set of questions asked.

This is the highest prevalence rate for both bullying and cyberbullying reports among the four national surveys.

For NatSCEV II, data were collected by telephone interview on 4,503 children and youth ages 1 month to 17 years. If the respondent was between the ages of 10-17, the main telephone interview was conducted with the child. If the respondent was younger than age 10, the interview was conducted with the child's primary caregiver.

The statistical standard for referring to “trends” is at least three data points in the same direction. In the SCS, the decrease from 2011 to 2013 is one data point, and conclusions should not be drawn at this point in time.

The committee's Statement of Task (see Box 1-1 ) requested “a particular focus on children who are most at risk of peer victimization—i.e., those with high-risk factors in combination with few protective factors . . .” At-risk subpopulations specifically named in the Statement of Task were “children with disabilities,” poly-victims, LGBT youth, and children living in poverty . . .”

The committee expands on this topic in Chapter 3 .

Reisner and colleagues (2015, p. 1) define cisgender youth as youth “whose gender identity or expression matches one's sex assigned at birth.”

The National YRBS data available at the time of publication did not include questions about sexual identity and sex of sexual contacts, but these topics are included in the YRBS report released in June 2016.

This section is adapted from a study ( Rose, 2015 ) commissioned by the committee for this report.

In this review, weight stigma included “verbal teasing (e.g., name calling, derogatory remarks, being made fun of), physical bullying (e.g., hitting, kicking, pushing, shoving), and relational victimization (e.g., social exclusion, being ignored or avoided, the target of rumors”) ( Puhl and Latner, 2007 , p. 558).

• Cite this Page Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Law and Justice; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Health and Medicine Division; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Rivara F, Le Menestrel S, editors. Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Sep 14. 2, The Scope of the Problem.
• PDF version of this title (3.8M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• The National Academies Collection: Reports funded by National Institutes of Health

Related information

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• The Scope of the Problem - Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Prac... The Scope of the Problem - Preventing Bullying Through Science, Policy, and Practice

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

To give you the best experience, this site uses cookies. Learn more about cookies

Browse study websites

• Alcohol and Pregnancy & FASD
• Children's Diabetes Centre
• Cystic Fibrosis
• Discovery Centre
• Early Human Capability Index (eHCI)
• Embrace @ Telethon Kids
• End RHD CRE
• Journey Together
• ORIGINS Project
• Rett Syndrome and Related Disorders
• Telethon Kids Cancer Centre
• Wal-yan Respiratory Centre
• Wesfarmers Centre of Vaccines and Infectious Diseases
• Young Minds Matter

Discover. Prevent. Cure.

• News & events
• Study websites
• Accessibility mode
• Our research

We're searching for answers to some of the most common and complex childhood diseases, conditions and issues. In addition to our four research themes (Indigenous Health, Brain and Behaviour, Chronic and Severe Diseases, Early Environment), you can also discover more about specific research we're involved in and the technology we use.

• Research Themes
• Research Impact
• Reports and Findings
• Innovation and commercialisation

Discover what drives us as an organisation. Learn about history and the impact of the Institute along with the amazing ambitious goals we've achieved so far in the field of children's research.

• Vision and Strategy
• Achievements
• Annual Reports
• Our Locations
• Gender Equity, Diversity, and Inclusivity

Be involved

Join us! Get involved with Telethon Kids through providing a donation, volunteering your time, participating in important research, or with a professional commitment to the institute.

• Giving at Telethon Kids
• Help Shape Our Research
• Visit the Discovery Centre

Info for...

Different audiences rely on us for very different things. Whether you're a valued donor, curious professional researcher, inquisitive member of the public, or a corporate supplier looking to offer support - we've collated the resources you need.

• Researchers
• Icon selection Suppliers

Recommended pages

Do you mean

• Research Topics

Bullying is now regarded as a health problem and not just a disciplinary problem. Increasing evidence shows both traditional bullying (e.g. hitting, teasing) and cyberbullying have lasting effects on young people (both those who bully and those who are bullied), including damage to self-esteem, academic results and mental health.

What is bullying?

Bullying occurs when an individual (or a group of people) repeatedly and intentionally cause harm to another person (or group of people), who is unable to avoid being targeted.

Bullying can include:

• Physical bullying (hitting, tripping, damaging property)
• Verbal bullying (insults, teasing, intimidation)
• Social bullying (lying, spreading rumours, excluding, damaging someone's social reputation)
• Cyberbullying (hurtful texts, posts, images or videos, imitating others online).

Social bullying and cyberbullying can be considered ‘invisible’ or covert forms of bullying, as they are particularly difficult for teachers and parents to detect and address. As students get older, they are increasingly likely to bully others using these covert behaviours.

The risk of being cyberbullied increases with age and is most likely to occur in high school. Cyberbullying is particularly upsetting for young people, because it can occur in any time or place, be witnessed by a wide audience, and the perpetrator can hide their identity.

All forms of bullying can have serious consequences for the person targeted, for the person who learns to bully others to achieve their goals, and for those who witness the bullying. Bullying involvement is associated with feelings of being unsafe, poor relationships and social support, poor academic outcomes, and an increased risk of depression and other mental health issues.

Friends (64%) followed by parents or guardians (57%) and then teachers and other staff members (46%) are the people students most commonly turn to for help if they are bullied. Boys (33%) are more likely than girls (23%) to not ask anyone for help.

Telltale signs of being bullied can include:

• Changes in sleeping and eating patterns,
• Frequent tears or anger
• Feeling ill in the morning and not wanting to go to school
• Changing friendship groups and
• Unexplained bruises, cuts and scratches.

How common is bullying in Australia?

Despite attention to the problem by schools, communities and researchers, bullying continues to be highly prevalent in Australian schools.

Approximately 1 in 4 students in Years 4-9 is bullied every few weeks or more often, and frequent school bullying is highest among students in Year 5 and Year 8.

What can parents do?

It is important for parents to monitor their children’s online and offline activities and social interactions, and encourage their child to talk about any troubling experiences. If bullying has occurred, parents must be careful not to react with anger or take action without consulting their child. Young people often hide bullying from parents because they fear the parent will make things worse.

It is helpful for parents to use the LATE strategy:

• Acknowledge it hurts
• Talk about options
• End with encouragement.

Schools and parents should also encourage students to be positive bystanders in online and offline settings. Those who witness bullying can help the person being targeted by standing up for them, telling a teacher or other adult, or by comforting them later. Students should be aware that they are contributing to bullying behaviour if they encourage the perpetrator or watch without taking action.

Our research impact

The Friendly Schools body of research since 1999 has contributed to societal impacts related to improvements in the health and wellbeing and other developmental outcomes for Australian children and adolescents.

FS research has been refined and empirically tested in Australia over the past 20 years (since 1999) through 15 major research projects (including 7 randomised control trials) involving over 30,000 students, their teachers, parents and school leaders in 255 schools. This program has been evaluated more rigorously and over a longer duration than any other bullying prevention program in Australia.

Over 3000 Australian schools have been recorded by the publishers to have implemented Friendly Schools resources since 2005. It is also being used in schools in the USA, Canada, UK, Singapore, South Africa and NZ

Over 70 peer review publications have been published from FS research data detailing findings including the effectiveness of FS in consistently reducing student bullying behaviours.

Friendly Schools research has significantly influenced national and state policy in WA, QLD, SA, VIC and NSW and national and international policy.

Bullying: A researcher's perspective

The Friendly Schools research is as important now as it was when we began it 20 years ago – if not more so. 

With the emergence and increasingly visibility of cyberbullying, schools and communities are realising that bullying is not just a normal part of childhood, but can result in significant long-term damage. New fields of research suggest that severe social stress can even affect gene expression, leading to long-term chronic physical and mental health problems.

If we can help students negotiate stressful social circumstances and prevent bullying from occurring to themselves and to others, we can have a significant positive impact on their future.

I'm also passionate about the research because there is such a need for it – I regularly receive requests for advice from worried parents and schools struggling to address bullying with limited support and resources.

A key focus of FS is to provide training and strategies to parents, students and school staff, so they can feel empowered to help children prevent and cope with social difficulties.  

 Finally, I feel strongly that young people have the right to contribute to research efforts that involve them, and I have found it very rewarding to work with students to co-develop strategies to prevent bullying. They understand online environments better than most adults, and frequently come up with insightful suggestions and creative ideas to help other young people, and adults.

How to respond if your child is being bullied

It can be hard to know how to respond if your child is being bullied, but in this video, Professor Donna Cross from the Telethon Kids Institute provides parents and carers with some practical advice.

Top ten tips for cyber safety

Want to know how to keep your kids safe online? Professor Donna Cross from the Telethon Kids Institute gives her top ten tips for cyber safety in this video.

Bullying teams

• Parenting & Families
• Human Development and Community Wellbeing

Bullying help and more info

Bullying. So Not Ok. (A Girls’ Education And Prevention Booklet)

Friendly Schools

National Centre Against Bullying

Alannah and Madeline Foundation

Kids Helpline

Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study

Office of the Children's eSafety Comissioner

Be Inspired

Join thousands of active subscribers and hear about the brave kids, dedicated researchers, and world-leading science at Telethon Kids Institute.

First Name* Last Name* Email*

We guarantee 100% privacy. Your information will not be shared.

Bullying in Childhood Can Harm the Brain

Extensive research shows that bullying can damage developing brains..

Posted June 6, 2023 | Reviewed by Abigail Fagan

• How to Handle Bullying
• Find counselling to support kids or teens
• Years of brain research documents the significant harm done to children's brains from bullying.
• Bullying can damage brain regions affecting mental health, social connection, and academic performance.
• Actions to stop bullying include keeping leaders informed and children aware, and repairing the harm done.

Leading academic researchers into the ways bullying victimization in childhood harms brains, Dr. Tracy Vaillancourt and Dr. Iryna Palamarchuk conducted a meta-analysis of the last 25 years of research. They placed their own findings on bullying victimization into a larger arena of what other researchers have found about toxic stress ’ impact on children’s developing brains. Their in-depth overview of stress psychopathology is vitally important reading for all who work with children: medical personnel, parents, teachers, coaches, social workers, mental health professionals, counsellors, and first responders.

Their overview reveals that due to the negative force of bullying on specific brain regions, children who are targeted by bullying can develop sensitivity toward facial expressions, poor cognitive reasoning, and overall distress that affects behavior and emotion regulation . The harm done to their brains may lead them to misinterpret a surprised face as an angry one, struggle to learn in school, act with despondence or defiance, and suffer emotionally in the form of depression , anxiety , or unregulated anger .

What impact does bullying have on the brain?

Vaillancourt and Palamarchuk’s summary statement on what they discovered in their own, and extensive research done by other experts, is that “targets of bullying victimization suffer chronic emotional distress which compromises their mental health and leads to persistent physical and social dysfunction, as well as poor academic achievement.” Considering the failure in developed nations to stop bullying in childhood, this summary grounded in a scientific study should galvanize change.

While children are more vulnerable to bullying because neuronal development is taking place, adults who have been targeted by workplace bullying would instantly relate to the misery of constant emotional distress; many suffer blows to their mental health; they frequently miss work or have to go on leave due to mental and physical illness resulting from bullying; and they do not perform their best at their respective positions. They have poor performance indicators and are unable to fulfill their potential.

How do bullied brains manifest the harm done?

Extensive research shows that bullying victimization disturbs “emotional processing” which can lead to “ psychiatric disorders.” Targets suffer intense responses to social exclusion. They may develop severe “adolescent social anxiety .” Girls in particular respond to bullying with “poor social self-esteem .” They are interrupted by negative, intrusive memories that can lead to “psychiatric dysfunctions such as social anxiety disorder.” Targets have repeatedly elevated levels of the stress hormone cortisol which can harm both brain and body.

Vaillancourt and Palamarchuk hypothesize that children who have symptoms of depression and post- traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ) from bullying are in fact showing symptoms of “neurophysiological changes” that researchers also find with abused children. What is going on in the brain? Whether from bullying or abuse, these child victims’ brains have suppressed neurogenesis. Namely, they struggle to birth new brain cells which are important for overall health. They have “stress-associated delayed myelination.” In other words, the fatty insulator that encases axons is delayed by toxic stress. Myelin is important for developing skills, knowledge, and talent. Finally, they also suffer a distorted kind of brain cell death that once again affects healthy brain functioning.

Child populations today are at significant risk for mental health disorders. They are suffering at levels never seen before in terms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, and suicide . Brain research can help children, youth, and those who work with them, to understand how critical it is to prevent bullying, protect from bullying, and repair the damage done to the brain if bullying has occurred.

3 Ways to Protect Brains from Bullying

We need to act based on scientific findings. While lawmakers have been slow to bring about effective change, we can start making organizational change: ensure that leaders are informed and proactive because the science is clear that all forms of bullying and abuse can do serious harm to brains and thus physical and mental health.

Principals in schools, heads of human resources, mental health practitioners, leaders in social work, head doctors, bosses at work, all those in leadership positions need to understand the significant harm done to brains by bullying and act to protect those in their care, especially children. If they protect their people from fire, they need to also protect them from bullying with as much attention to detail and professional input as possible.

Teach children and youth that bullying is very harmful to their brain and should be avoided just like they would avoid traumatic brain injuries . While they can’t wear a helmet that protects them from blows to the brain, they can harness themselves with knowledge about the toxic effects of all forms of bullying and abuse. They need to be well-informed on how to report and how to enlist adult intervention. From an early age, children can learn how to make their brains visible with drawings and as they become older with photographs and video.

Children can learn the various regions of the brain impacted specifically in harmful ways from bullying and develop a vocabulary to report accurately the harm being done to their developing brains by bullying. If schools and sport programs are not teaching brain safety and health, with a focus on how bullying is toxic, then parents must add this to the list of vitally important learnings for their children.

As much as bullying harms brains, there are also extensive studies on how to repair the harm done. Targets can learn evidence-based interventions to assist the brain in resilience to and recovery from bullying: Dr. Stan Rodski's mindful "coloration", Dr. John Raty's aerobic fitness, Dr. Michael Merzenich's neuroscience -designed brain training, Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett's theory of constructed emotion , are all effective practices.

Palamarchuk, I. & Vaillancourt, T. (2022). "Integrative Brain Dynamics in Childhood Bullying Victimization." Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 16: 1-24.

Jennifer Fraser, Ph.D., is an award-winning educator and bestselling author. Her latest book, The Bullied Brain: Heal Your Scars and Restore Your Health , hit shelves and airwaves in April 2022.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• International
• New Zealand
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• 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

124 Bullying Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on bullying, ✍️ bullying essay topics for college, 👍 good bullying research topics & essay examples, 🎓 most interesting bullying research titles, ❓ bullying research questions.

• School Bullying: Causes and Effects
• Bullying in Schools: Essay Example
• Bullying at School and Impact on Mental Health
• The Problem of Bullying in School
• Chronicles of Bullying: An Editorial Article
• Bullying in Schools: Anti-Bullying Programs
• Bullying: A Serious Social Problem
• Bullying Behavior and Its Negative Effects on Children Bullying behavior is a severe issue among school-age children. This essay addresses the negative effects of bullying on children and the ways of overcoming the problem.
• School Bullying and Student’s Development Bullying is one of the major social issues facing youth in schools today. This work entails research that was carried out on a student to studying the level of bullying in school.
• Negative Bullying Outcomes: A Persuasive Speech Bullying has adverse effects on both victims and perpetrators. Bullying should be prevented, or should it occur, reported, and taken care of as soon as possible.
• Workplace Bullying and Its Implications on Organizations Discrimination is one of the major challenges that organizational leaders face within the workplace. Workplace bullying refers to any acts intended to intimidate a colleague.
• The Cognitive Behavioural Therapy on Victims of Bullying This paper will be able to ascertain that Cognitive Behavioural Therapy is a very effective therapy that defies the ugly trend of bullying in schools.
• Prevention of Bullying in Schools School bullying is a relevant and critical global issue, and while it affects all children, some groups may experience various disparities and increased exposure to bullying.
• School Bullying and Legal Responsibility The following paper will discuss and cover the rate of school bullies’ legally unregulated actions and the detriment that they constantly cause to other children who surround them.
• Why Bullying Is Wrong and Methods of Resolving Disputes Without Violence Such methods of conflict resolution as mediation, communication, and listening may eliminate the harmful impact of such behavior without violence.
• Teenagers’ Contemporary Issues: Bullying at School Bullying can be caused by differences between students, and the existing assessment and support options contribute to improving the situation.
• Bullying Effects on Health and Life Quality When children are subject to bullying by their peers, it affects their feelings and evokes negative emotions in the first place.
• Bullying in the Modern Society: Review Bullying is one of the major concerns of modern society. Following the statistics, about 40% of all individuals have experienced being bullied at least once.
• The Issue of Cyber-Bullying in Education Field Bullying has been recognized as a pervasive and a severe problem as well as a significant concern, mostly in the educational field.
• Online Bullying Takes Over the World In the context of a rapidly and highly digitized global environment, online bullying, otherwise known as cyberbullying, has become a prevalent issue.
• Bullying and Sexual Harassment at Work Place According to Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention, workplace bullying occurs when an individual direct irrational actions repeatedly towards their fellow worker.
• Reducing Bullying in Schools by Involving Stakeholders Schools should raise awareness among educators, instructors, and community members about their roles and responsibilities in the battle against bullying.
• Bullying Problem in School Bullying is caused by genetic predisposition, relations with peers, and as a reaction to the situation in school or at home.
• The Problem of Workplace Bullying: Literature Review The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the relevant literature on the topic of workplace bullying.
• School Bullying and Problems in Adult Life Bullying is aggressive behavior that can be seen in different children, teenagers, and adults. In this paper, the causes of bullying and the effects of it will be presented and discussed.
• Bullying and Parenting Styles There are many positive and negative outcomes of parenting on children. This paper aims at investigating the connection between several types of parenting and bullying behaviors.
• Cyber-Bullying and Ways to Solve the Problem The primary goal of the given study is the investigation of cyber-bullying, which is nowadays one of the integral parts of social media and the Internet.
• The Consequences of High School Bullying This annotated bibliography includes summaries of four academic studies that explore the effects of bullying on high school students.
• Bullying of Learners with Disabilities The problem of bullying remains one of the predicaments learners with disabilities encounter in their learning environments.
• Bullying and Work-Related Stress in the Irish Workplace One of the best analyses of relationships between workplace stress and bullying has been done in the research study called “Bullying and Work-Related Stress in the Irish Workplace.”
• Workplace Bullying and Its Impact on People’s Mental Health Workplace bullying turns out to be a serious theme for discussion because of a variety of reasons, and one of them is its impact on people’s mental health.
• Cyber-Bullying and Cyber-Stalking as Crimes Cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking are relatively close in meaning, but there is a slight difference in the definition of these terms.
• Addressing Bullying in Elementary and Middle School Classrooms The study mainly focuses on teachers’ lack of knowledge on how to deal with the issue of bullying in the classroom in an effective manner.
• Bullying at Pre-School and Preventive Measures This paper provides five tips for pre-school bullying prevention, the first of which is to give opportunities for children to show kindness and respect.
• The Social Problem of Bullying and the School System The present paper focuses on the connection between the social problem of bullying and the school system, describing each of these concepts.
• Anti Bullying Prevention Program The standards for anti-bullying program aims to prevent not only the behavior of bullying but also behavior representing the full spectrum of inter-student cruelty.
• Bullying in Poverty and Child Development Context The aim of the present paper is to investigate how Bullying, as a factor associated with poverty, affects child development.
• Bullying Among Adolescents Problem Studying the problem of bullying, its factors of influence, and the application of developmental theories are critical for finding ways to combat it effectively.
• Deterring Juvenile Crime. Bullying and Delinquency Delinquency can be defined as a crime committed by a minor; in the recent few years, cases of juvenile delinquency have been on the rise.
• Parenting Style and Bullying Among Children The investigation of parenting styles is highly essential to understand how they affect the bullying behavior of children to prevent it.
• Organization Conflicts and Bullying Workplace bullying is a serious problem with huge costs attached to it in terms of loss of working days. The topic requires academic attention to ascertain the factors that induce such behavior.
• Harsher Laws for Cyber Bullying The number of people using social networks is growing but they do not see the danger in remote communication and are subjected to cyberbullying.
• Bullying: A Guide for the Parents The first way for parents to assist the kid in coming up with bullies is to teach them a set of responses, which they can use in case someone is picking on them.
• Bullying and School Drop Out Rate Relationship Analysis Bullying is rife in schools where physical and verbal abuse occurs among pupils/students. There is “a close relationship between bullying, school involvement, and literacy”.
• The Meaning of Cyber Bullying The work reveals the meaning and purpose of cyberbullying, what signs characterize it and the solution to cyberbullying.
• Exploring Workplace Bullying in Nursing This paper critiques Etienne’s 2013 study of workplace bullying in nursing and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the research.
• Causes of Bullying in Nursing The relationship between medical staff is an important aspect that determines the quality of work in a particular institution and the healthcare system as a whole.
• High School Bullying: Psychological Aspects The study discusses the psychology behind bullying, the effects of bullying on all the involved parties, and emergent patterns.
• The Workplace Bullying Prevention Policy The problem of bullying creates a severe issue for the atmosphere of the workplace environment, the mental health of workers, and their performance.
• The Issue of High School Bullying Bullying cases among high school students have been on the rise in modern society. High school bullying is mainly caused by media exposure.
• Bullying and Methods of Solving This Problem The article is devoted to the causes of bullying which develops in almost any closed community among children and adolescents.
• Bullying During Orientations in the Universities In order to address the issue related to bullying during orientations, only the most empathetic senior students should be allowed to participate in orientations.
• The Relation Between the Teen Suicide and Bullying During the teenage years, bullying and harassment represent cases of social animosity that make suicide an option.
• Cyber Bullying Messages in Communication Networks Bullying can come in different forms, but it always causes injury or even worse. Bullying victims may carry the psychological wounds of their ordeal for the rest of their life.
• Problem Scenario: Workplace Bullying in Teaching When the word “bullying” is used in the context of education, one often presumes the situation in which one student systematically mistreats another.
• Bullying and Patient Safety in Clinical Settings Besides damaging the atmosphere in clinical settings and negatively affecting the personnel, bullying can lower the quality of healthcare services and harm patient safety.
• The Long-Term Consequences of Being Bullied or Bullying Others in Childhood This study attempts to discuss the main consequences on the mental and physical health of victims, bully-victims, and bullies themselves, and comment on the prevalent patterns.
• Bullying as Managerial Issue in Nursing Sector Bullying is a significant nursing issue due to the negative impact caused on the performance level among the employees.
• Problem of Bullying Overview and Analysis Bullying can have harmful impacts on everyone involved, including bullies, the bullied, and bystanders. It can be prevented through the use of selective preventive programs.
• Nurse Bullying: Unprofessional Conduct Bullying can be exhibited in the form of physical and verbal threats, social seclusion, aggressive behaviors, and suppression of applicable care information.
• Bullying: A Concern for Modern Communities and Educational Establishments Parents can educate their children to create safe environment for healthy development, both physical and mental, guaranteeing the absence of abusive behavior or victimization.
• Bullying and Its Impact on My Life In this essay, the author talks about the impact of bullying on his life and how he managed to cope with the problem.
• “Nurse Exposure to Physical and Nonphysical Violence, Bullying…” by Spector This paper is a critique of the article titled “Nurse Exposure to Physical and Nonphysical Violence, Bullying, and Sexual Harassment: A Quantitative Review”.
• Anti-bullying Practices in Criminal Prosecution Anti-bullying practices have proceeded past only encouraging an individual to avoid ill-treatment of their peers to the establishment of laws.
• Workplace Bullying: Dealing With the Office Bully The psychological stress caused by bullying can be so severe that in the worst case, it can lead to depression and quitting.
• The Dumfries and Galloway Council’s Policy Against Bullying This paper discusses the analysis of the bullying in general and its understanding in the works of Dumfries and Galloway Council.
• Workplace Bullying in the Nursing Areas The paper is aimed to tell about the importance of overcoming workplace bullying in the example of a nursing collective.
• Bullying Among Nursing Staff The bullying in health care is still present, and health practitioners’ mental health, motivation, and ability to uphold precision and self-composure are compromised.
• Nurse Bullying and Legal Interventions Nurse bullying has to be addressed by healthcare establishments and national agencies to ensure proper work culture and adequate environment for patient care.
• Horizontal Violence and Bullying in Nursing There is a direct correlation between horizontal violence and job satisfaction among nurses, which affects the efforts of individuals who choose this profession.
• Fear Appeal in the Stop Bullying Public Campaign In the video “Stop bullying,” the subject matter is presented shockingly. The 47-second clip shows a high school girl receiving an aggressive text message from her peers.
• Bullying and Laws in American Schools Researchers distinguish two major kinds of bullying that take place in the academic setting: direct and indirect.
• School Bullying and Teacher Professional Development
• Bullying and Its Effect on Our American Society
• Physical, Emotional, and Social Bullying
• The Government Should Put Laws in Place To Prevent Bullying
• Childhood Bullying and Social Relationships
• Bullying and Its Effects on Individual’s Education
• The Emotional and Physical Aspects of Bullying
• Bullying and Its Effects on the Person Who Is Being Hurt
• Childhood Bullying and Its Effects on Children
• Cyber Bullying Affects People‘s Lives More Than One Might Think
• Managing Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace
• Bullying Affects the Social Learning Theory
• How Has Bullying Changed Our Modern World?
• Bullying and the Workplace and Affect Morale
• The Bible Belt and Its Beliefs on the Problem of Bullying
• Cyber-bullying Through Anonymous Social Media
• The Difference Between Bullying and Harassment
• Racial Bullying and Its Effects on the Middle of the Twenty
• Bullying Among Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Social Media Bullying and Cyberbullying
• Bullying Prevention and School Safety
• Physical and Verbal Bullying in Schools
• What Are Schools and Parents Doing for Bullying Prevention?
• What Are the Effects of Bullying in Public Schools?
• What Strategies Might You Employ to Encourage Pupils to Prevent Bullying?
• How to Talk to Your Children About Bullying?
• What Are the Six Types of Bullying Parents Should Know About?
• Which American State Has the Toughest Bullying Laws?
• Who Started and Invented Anti-Bullying Day?
• What Countries Have Anti-Bullying Laws?
• Which American State Is the Only One to Not Have an Anti-Bullying Law?
• What Is the Meaning of Anti-Bullying Law?
• What Is the Number One Determinant of Bullying Will Occur?
• When Was the First Anti-Bullying Law Passed?
• Is Bullying a Social Determinant of Health?
• What Should Be in an Anti-Bullying Policy?
• Why Is the Anti-Bullying Policy Important?
• Why Should We Be Aware of the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013?
• What Is the Meaning of Emotional Bullying?
• What Is the Punishment for Anti-Bullying Act?
• Is Bullying a Social Phenomena?
• Who Is the Father of Bullying Research?
• What Is a Good Slogan for Stop Bullying?
• Why Do the Bullying Programs not Work?
• Why Students Engage in Bullying?
• Why Are Workplace Bullying and Violence Important Issues for Organizations?
• Why Should Bullying Not Be Harsh?
• What Is the Most Important Strategy for Bullying Prevention?
• Why Do We Need to Conduct a Study About Bullying?
• Are Bullying Prevention Programs Effective?
• Who Should Universities Have the Ability to Punish Students for Cyber Bullying?
• Are Neoliberalist Behaviours Reflective of Bullying?

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2022, January 28). 124 Bullying Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/bullying-essay-topics/

"124 Bullying Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 28 Jan. 2022, studycorgi.com/ideas/bullying-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2022) '124 Bullying Essay Topics'. 28 January.

1. StudyCorgi . "124 Bullying Essay Topics." January 28, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/bullying-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "124 Bullying Essay Topics." January 28, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/bullying-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2022. "124 Bullying Essay Topics." January 28, 2022. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/bullying-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Bullying were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on December 27, 2023 .

Questions Answered

• Publications
• Students with Disabilities
• Spanish - Recursos Acerca de Bullying
• Cyberbullying
• Sites for Kids and Teens
• Elementary School Education
• Elementary School Activities
• Middle / High School Education
• Middle / High School Activities
• All In – Year-long Teacher Toolkit
• Show Your Support
• Student Activity Kit
• Share Information
• PACERTalks About Bullying Series
• Carmen's Corner Series
• Music Videos
• Student Created Videos
• What Should You Do?
• Los Angeles Gala
• Take The Pledge
• Cartoon Network, Redraw Your World Without Bullying
• Cartoon Network, Kids Take On Bullying
• Build Community Kit
• Students With Solutions
• The Unity Awards
• Stories of Hope and Resilience
• I Care Because …
• Friends of PACER’s Run Walk Roll
• Definition, Impact and Roles
• Laws and Policy
• Helping Your Child
• Working with the School
• Mobile and Online Safety
• All Products
• Unity Day T-shirt
• Unity Day Posters
• Classroom 5-Poster Series
• Beyond Sticks and Stones
• Instagram Poster Series
• Create A World Without Bullying Resource kit

Bullying 101

How is bullying defined? – Bullying is when someone aggressively uses their “power” to target another individual with repeated, unwanted words or actions. Those targeted are hurt either physically or emotionally and have a hard time stopping what is happening to them.

Students often describe bullying as when “someone makes you feel less about who you are as a person.”

Conflict vs. Bullying – Bullying is different from conflict.

• Conflict is a disagreement or argument in which both sides express their views.
• Bullying is negative behavior directed by someone exerting power and control over another person.

Bullying is done with a goal to hurt, harm, or humiliate. With bullying, there is often a power imbalance between those involved, with power defined as elevated social status, being physically larger, or as part of a group against an individual. Students who bully perceive their target as vulnerable in some way and often find satisfaction in harming them.

In normal conflict, children self-monitor their behavior. They read cues to know if lines are crossed, and then modify their behavior in response. Children guided by empathy usually realize they have hurt someone and will want to stop their negative behavior. On the other hand, children intending to cause harm and whose behavior goes beyond normal conflict will continue their behavior even when they know it's hurting someone.

What is the difference between bullying and harassment? – Bullying and harassment are often used interchangeably when talking about hurtful or harmful behavior. They are very similar, but in terms of definition, there is an important difference.

• power and control
• actions that hurt or harm another person physically or emotionally
• an imbalance of power between the target and the individual demonstrating the negative behavior
• the target having difficulty stopping the action directed at them

The distinction between bullying and harassment is that when the bullying behavior directed at the target is also based on a protected class, that behavior is then defined as harassment. Protected classes include race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin.

Why use the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying”? – PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center uses the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying” to place the emphasis on a proactive approach and philosophy, framing bullying as an issue to which there is a solution. While the use of “anti” does appropriately indicate the concept of being against bullying, the focus on “prevention” recognizes that change is ultimately about shifting behavior and attitudes, which can happen through the positive approach of education, awareness, and action.

How is “direct bullying” different from “indirect bullying”?

Direct bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates and is overt, obvious, and apparent to anyone witnessing it. The actions and words are easy to identify, the identity of the person bullying is usually known, and the acts are directed toward the person being bullied – they know about the bullying as it is happening.

Indirect bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates, which is often covert, subtle, and not always immediately acknowledged as bullying. The words and actions can be harder to identify, can be done anonymously and discreetly, and the target might not find out about the bullying until long after it has happened.

Why is prevention important?

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” “A stitch in time saves nine.” These sayings are familiar to many people, but how many of us have ever thought about how we could prevent a big problem like bullying or how our individual efforts could make a difference? Have you ever wondered what changes would need to occur in our daily lives to prevent bullying or reduce the chance that it will happen? If we only think or act when bullying is already happening, we are then solely focused on intervention and we may never see the end of this behavior. Promoting and modeling positive social behaviors before negative outcomes like bullying occur is a good way to create safer, healthier schools and communities for all children.

Why do we use “target” vs. “victim” and “child who bullies” vs. “bully” – You’ve likely heard statements such as “My child is a victim of bullying” or “That student is a bully.” Though these phrases are commonly used, are they the best terms to describe a child’s behavior and actions?

When referring to those involved in bullying situations, avoid stereotyping them into categories. Focus on behavior, not on labels.

• Instead of “bullying victim,” replace with the phrase “he’s a target of bullying.” This shows that the child is not powerless, and that with support and education they can change what’s happening to them.
• Instead of “she’s a bully” use instead, “she’s someone who bullies.” This shows that bullying is a part of who she is, but with support and education she can make changes in her behavior.

Does bullying happen more often than adults think? – There are many different types of bullying a student may experience, such as physical, verbal, emotional, or cyber. While all forms are equally hurtful, many behaviors harm students emotionally rather than physically, or happen in online environments versus the physical world — making it harder for adults to identify.

Physical bullying is often easier for adults to detect because the behavior is overt or signs are left behind (bruises, broken bones, damaged belongings). However, the words, gossip, rumors, or shared secrets that constitute verbal and social bullying don’t leave a physical trail of the emotional pain.

Bullying in online environments usually happens outside of adults’ view as well. While it often leaves behind an electronic trail of hurtful words or images, adults don’t know it is happening unless the student tells someone or an adult is monitoring their online activity.

What Are Some Common Misconceptions about Bullying? – In spite of the significant impact that bullying can have on a target, it often continues to be viewed as acceptable behavior. There are many misconceptions that adults may have about bullying, all of which can lead to minimizing the behavior. Learn more about responses such as “boys will be boys” or “it’s only teasing.”

Helpful Information for Adults

Why is it important for students to advocate for themselves and how can adults help them learn those skills? – Speaking up for oneself, expressing needs, and taking action are essential self-advocacy tools for youth of all ages. When children know that there are options for regaining control or influencing a difficult situation, they gain the resilience to move through the obstacles that life brings. Children who actively participate in learning self-advocacy skills are better prepared to resolve problems themselves and understand when a problem requires adult help. Whether it’s a disagreement with a friend or a serious situation like bullying, teaching self-advocacy can reinforce a child’s understanding of how they create change in their world.

What are some strategies to reinforce messages of kindness, acceptance, and inclusion at a young age? – Positive adult role modeling, mentoring, and age-appropriate approaches to kindness, acceptance, and inclusion can make a big impact on how children treat each other in the classroom, on the playground, at home, and in the community. Young children are just learning what it means to get along, how to share toys, discovering ways to work together, and understand how their feelings and behavior affect others. Practice role-playing activities, play games, create art, explore feelings, and establish a clear set of behavioral rules. These strategies reinforce positive relationships and behaviors, and is one of the keys to helping kids get along, which ultimately can help prevent bullying.

Bullying Prevention for Children with Disabilities: Using the IEP, 504, or Creating Your Own Plan – Using an IEP, 504 Plan, or constructing a plan for bullying prevention with professionals at school for students with disabilities can help create a safer and healthier learning environment for all students.”

How does bullying impact students’ health? – Do you remember hearing “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?”

Research shows that this age-old saying simply isn’t true. Often, the physical impact of bullying (the “sticks and stones”) is easy to recognize, such as a child getting up after being pushed, damaged personal items, or having torn clothing.

However, bullying often impacts our children in ways that aren’t so obvious. While words don’t physically injure, they do still hurt, and can cause emotional harm. Verbal and emotional bullying, such as teasing and social exclusion, as well as physical bullying, have the potential to negatively impact a student’s overall health, along with their sense of well-being.

What are some strategies for adults to redirect bullying behavior? – When a child is bullying others, it’s important that parents and educators take action. It is equally important for adults to recognize that bullying is about behavior, and they should choose responses that acknowledge behavior can be changed. Reframing the focus from labeling a child as a “bully” to referring to them as a “child with bullying behavior” recognizes that there is capacity for change. While children who are bullying others should be given appropriate consequences for their behavior, adults should be talking with their children to learn why they are bullying others. Children need to understand the impact their behavior has on others and realize the hurt they are causing. With adult guidance, redirecting bullying behavior toward an understanding of differences, as well as the practices of kindness and inclusion, are good strategies for reshaping a child’s behavior.

My child is being bullied at school. How can I communicate effectively with the school to make sure the bullying doesn’t continue? – When your child is the target of bullying, a parent’s first response is often an emotional one, followed by a sense of wanting to know the most effective, action-oriented response. Building positive relationships between the school, parents, and students will ensure that a plan and timeline of action can be quickly set in place to prevent further bullying.

How do I start a conversation about cyberbullying with my child? – The internet is the newest place for children and teens to communicate and share moments with their peers. While it can be a positive place for students to interact, the rise of technology has also led to a new and serious form of bullying, known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as the use of technology to send or share mean, threatening, or embarrassing messages or images to or about someone. It might be in a text, email, message, on social media, or in a post online. Just as it’s important to talk with your child about bullying, it’s important to discuss cyberbullying as soon as your child starts to interact online. Discuss what information is and isn’t appropriate to share online, as well as establishing cyber rules together, such as what sites your child will be allowed to use and hours of usage. During this conversation, explain that if something hurtful is shared online (via words, images, videos, etc.), it counts as cyberbullying, and it’s important that you know about it. Together, you can strategize a plan to respond to the cyberbullying and keep kids safe online.

What should parents do when a team culture of teasing leads to bullying? – Merriam-Webster dictionary defines teasing as , “Making fun of or disturbing or annoying with persistent irritating or provoking behavior, especially in a petty or mischievous way .” Many children participate in teasing, both as the one exhibiting the behavior and the one being teased. Teasing, in and of itself, is not considered bullying. However, when the behavior meets distinguishing hallmarks, including no longer being fun or funny to the intended target, causing emotional distress, being repeated, or continuing despite the target’s desire for it to stop, it then reaches the level of bullying. When a child is on a team in which the coach or teammates view bullying behavior as “just teasing” or dismiss it as “kids being kids,” parents should first ensure that their child feels supported, and next address the concern directly with the coach or adult leaders by examining how the culture of teasing impacts team members.

How Do You Help Your Child Recognize the Signs of Bullying? – Children may not always realize that they are being bullied. They might think it is bullying only if they are being physically hurt; they might believe the other child is joking; or they may not understand the subtle social norms and cues. Children can benefit from a definition of the differences between friendly behavior and bullying behavior. The basic rule, which is not a legal or comprehensive definition: Let children know bullying is when someone is being hurt either by words or actions on purpose, usually more than once, feels bad because of it, and has a hard time stopping what is happening to them. Parents can prepare themselves to talk with their children by considering how they are going to respond to their child’s questions and emotions. They can also decide what information they would like to give their child about bullying.

Why Does Inclusion Matter for Bullying Prevention? – Inclusion helps foster a sense of “belonging” for all and increases the possibility that students will find meaningful connections among their peers, as well as support when they need it. When all are included and valued in the life of a community, bullying is less likely to occur.

Helpful Information for Youth

Can a friend be bullying me? – Friends will sometimes have bad days. Friends will sometimes disagree. Friends will sometimes hurt each other's feelings, have an argument, or simply need time away from one another. This is normal and can happen in any friendship, no matter how close. If you are experiencing treatment from a friend that hurts you and you have asked that friend to stop, but it still continues, then that is not friendship. That behavior could be bullying. Friendship behaviors do not include hurting someone on purpose or continually being mean even when asked to stop. A friend will change or be remorseful for her behavior if she finds out she's hurting you. If you aren't certain if what is happening is part of a normal friendship or if it is bullying, talk to an adult you trust and get help sorting out the relationship. And yes, it is okay (and the right thing to do) to ask for help.

How does peer pressure impact bullying behavior? – Peer pressure occurs when a peer group or individual encourages others to change their attitudes, values, or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual.

Peer pressure can impact bullying behavior both in positive and negative ways. For example, the influence can have negative effects if a peer group’s bullying behavior encourages others to laugh at someone. It can also be negative when the group views other individuals as not worthy to be part of their group. The impact of negative peer pressure can create environments in which individuals are intimidated to speak out on behalf of someone being hurt or harmed.

Peer pressure can also be positive and healthy. For example, when the peer group encourages kind and inclusive behavior, such as inviting others to join them at the lunch table or letting someone know that they care what is happening to them. The action of peers encouraging each other to reach out to those who are struggling can have a positive impact on the group and other individuals who want to speak out against bullying.

For students: What if you told an adult and it wasn’t helpful? – Have you told someone about being bullied and nothing has changed? Don’t give up! Did you know that you have the legal right to be safe at school? If the bullying continues even after you told an adult, know that there are laws designed to protect you (find your state law or policy at StopBullying.gov). It is very important for students to reach out to another trusted adult and ask for help again. This adult can be a parent, a teacher, a coach, or anyone from the community. Let them know that you need their help and that you wouldn’t be coming to them if you could fix the situation on your own.

National Office:

8161 Normandale Blvd. | Minneapolis, MN 55437

Los Angeles Area Office:

80 E. Hillcrest Drive, #203 | Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Founded in 2006, PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center actively leads social change to prevent childhood bullying, so that all youth are safe and supported in their schools, communities, and online.

[email protected]

• In The News
• History and Impact
• Press Releases

Visit our other sites

• KidsAgainstBullying.org
• TeensAgainstBullying.org

©2023 PACER Center, Inc.

How parents, teachers, and kids can take action to prevent bullying

Preventing and stopping bullying involves a commitment to creating a safe environment where children can thrive, socially and academically, without being afraid.

• Schools and Classrooms

Introduction

Bullying is aggressive behavior that is intentional and involves an imbalance of power or strength. It is a repeated behavior and can be physical, verbal, or relational. While boys may bully others using more physical means, girls often bully others by social exclusion. Bullying has been part of school, and even workplaces, for years. More recently, though, technology and social media have created a new venue for bullying that has expanded its reach. Cyberbullying is bullying that happens online and via cell phones. Websites like YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat allow kids to send hurtful, ongoing messages to other children 24 hours a day. Some sites, such as Instagram, allow messages to be left anonymously.

Preventing and stopping bullying involves a commitment to creating a safe environment where children can thrive, socially and academically, without being afraid. APA recommends that teachers, parents, and students take the following actions to address bullying.

Teachers and school administrators

Be knowledgeable and observant, involve students and parents.

Students and parents need to be a part of the solution and involved in safety teams and antibullying task forces. Students can inform adults about what is really going on and also teach adults about new technologies that kids are using to bully. Parents, teachers, and school administrators can help students engage in positive behavior and teach them skills so that they know how to intervene when bullying occurs. Older students can serve as mentors and inform younger students about safe practices on the internet.

Set positive expectations about behavior for students and adults

Schools and classrooms must offer students a safe learning environment. Teachers and coaches need to explicitly remind students that bullying is not accepted in school and such behaviors will have consequences. Creating an antibullying document and having both the student and the parents/guardians sign and return it to the school office helps students understand the seriousness of bullying. Also, for students who have a hard time adjusting or finding friends, teachers and administrators can facilitate friendships or provide “jobs” for the student to do during lunch and recess so that children do not feel isolated or in danger of becoming targets for bullying.

Parents of kids being bullied

Observe your child for signs they might be being bullied, teach your child how to handle being bullied, set boundaries with technology.

Educate your children and yourself about cyberbullying and teach your children not to respond or forward threatening emails. “Friend” your child on Facebook and other social media platforms and set up proper filters on your child’s computer. Make the family computer the only computer for children, and have it in a public place in the home where it is visible and can be monitored. If you decide to give your child a cell phone think carefully before allowing them to have a camera option. Let them know you will be monitoring their text messages. As a parent, you can insist that phones are stored in a public area, such as the kitchen, by a certain time at night to eliminate nighttime bullying and inappropriate messaging. Parents should report bullying to the school, and follow up with a letter that is copied to the school superintendent if their initial inquiry receives no response.

Parents should report all threatening messages to the police and should document any text messages, emails, or posts on websites.

Parents of kids engaged in bullying

Stop bullying before it starts.

Educate your children about bullying. It is possible that your child is having trouble reading social signs and does not know what they are doing is hurtful. Remind your child that bullying others can have legal consequences.

Make your home “bully free”

Children learn behavior through their parents. Being exposed to aggressive behavior or an overly strict environment at home makes kids more prone to bully at school. Parents/caregivers should model positive examples for your child in your relationships with other people and with them.

Look for self esteem issues

Children with low self-esteem often bully to feel better about themselves. Even children who seem popular and well-liked can have mean tendencies. Mean behavior should be addressed by parents and disciplined.

Report bullying and cyberbullying

It is important for students to report any bullying to a parent or an adult they trust. Often kids don’t report cyberbullying because they fear their parents will take away their phone or computer. Parents will support their child’s reports of bullying and not take away their phones as a consequence. It is important for kids to remember that bullying is wrong and should be handled by an adult.

Don’t bully back

It may be difficult to not bully back, but as the saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Try not to show anger or tears. Either calmly tell the bully to stop bullying or simply walk away.

Avoid being alone

Whenever possible, avoid situations where there are no other students or teachers. Try to go to the bathroom with a friend or eat lunch in a group. When riding the bus, sit near the front. If you know a student who likes to bully others is in an area where you normally walk to lunch or class, try to use alternative hallway routes.

Remember, report bullying of yourself or other students to your teacher, coach, principal, and/or parent.

Students who experience bullying may feel overwhelmed, depressed, or anxious. If your child or student is having trouble at school or with friends as a result of bullying, a mental health professional, such as a psychologist, can help your child develop resilience and confidence. This will enable your child to be more successful both socially and academically.

Additional resources

• Net Cetera: Chatting with kids about being online
• Stop Bullying Now Campaign
• APA Q and A with Dr. Susan Swearer
• Bullying Research Network

Special thanks to Rosalind Dorlen, PsyD, independent practice, New Jersey Elaine Ducharme, PhD, independent practice, Connecticut Susan M. Swearer, PhD, associate professor of school psychology and licensed psychologist; codirector, Nebraska Internship Consortium in Professional Psychology; and secretary, APA Division 16 (School Psychology)

Recommended Reading

• Cyberbullying: What is it and how can you stop it?
• Stop office bullying

You may also like

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Q&A: How and why we studied teens and cyberbullying

Roughly six-in-ten U.S. teens have been bullied or harassed online, according to a new Pew Research Center report  that explores teens’ experiences with cyberbullying and their views about it. Senior Researcher Monica Anderson discusses the methods and meaning behind the data.

Bullying has been around for decades, centuries even. Cyberbullying is a newer manifestation of bullying. How did you define cyberbullying for this research?

We’re aware that cyberbullying can be a very nuanced issue. Our own research has shown that what might be harassment to one person might not be considered harassment by another.

At the same time, other studies may use different measures to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying. For this project, we measured six specific incidents that teens might face online or on their cellphone: offensive name-calling, rumor-spreading, being sent explicit images without their consent, having explicit images of themselves shared without their consent, having someone other than a parent constantly asking where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with, and physical threats. If a teen said they ever had one or more of those experiences, they were considered a target of cyberbullying.

Our definition was designed to show that these experiences can range from less severe forms of harassment – like name-calling that teens may shrug off – to more severe forms of online abuse that includes stalking or physical threats.

Could you explain how surveying teens can be different and, in some ways, more difficult than surveying adults?

One big challenge with surveying teens is that you first have to get consent from a parent. If we’re doing a study of adults, we can call them directly or use our American Trends Panel . Surveying teens requires a second level of contact, and the more times you have to contact respondents, the more difficult it can be.

One of the consistent things we’ve found is that teens have a lot of thoughtful and engaging things to say about their own experiences and what’s going on in the world around them. Monica Anderson

As far as the content of our research, one of the consistent things we’ve found is that teens have a lot of thoughtful and engaging things to say about their own experiences and what’s going on in the world around them. People sometimes wonder if we alter questions so that teens can better understand. At times, we do alter them. We might use phrases like “spreading drama” or “going viral” that have special relevance for teens. But for most of our technology-centered surveys we’re polling teens in the same way we poll adults.

What do you think is a standout finding from the research?

One key finding in our research of adults is that women are more likely than men to face sexualized forms of online harassment – and we see a similar finding in our work dealing with teens as well. For instance, teenage girls are more likely than boys to say they’ve received explicit images they did not ask for. That’s especially true for older teen girls: 35% of girls ages 15 to 17 have received unwanted explicit images.

Your previous research has shown that 41% of U.S. adults have personally experienced online harassment. In this report, we learn that 59% of U.S. teens have been bullied or harassed online. Can you talk about the differences between these two results?

For starters, we are looking at two different groups of people in these surveys, so we’d expect that their experiences might vary. But there are also striking similarities in the findings if you compare young adults and the teens. It’s clear that harassment is incredibly common for both groups: A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds say they’ve experienced some type of harassment online.

Teenage girls are more likely than boys to say they’ve received explicit images they did not ask for. That’s especially true for older teen girls: 35% of girls ages 15 to 17 have received unwanted explicit images. Monica Anderson

We also tailored some questions in an effort to capture the lived experiences of adults and young people. For example, we use slightly different questions to measure online harassment in our surveys of teens and adults. When we conducted focus groups with teens, they often mentioned how easy it is for people to spread rumors or lies about others via texting and social media. So, we explicitly include “spreading false rumors” in our surveys of teens.

But although some questions differ, there are consistencies in the overall findings. For example, name-calling is the most common form of online harassment for both teens and adults. And as noted above, adult women and teenage girls are more likely to experience sexualized forms of online harassment when compared with their male counterparts.

While the report is mainly based on teens’ experiences with cyberbullying, it also addresses parents’ views of the issue and discusses how teens rate certain groups, including parents and teachers, when it comes to addressing cyberbullying. What were some of the findings related to these other groups?

In general, parents are quite confident in their ability to teach their children about what they should and shouldn’t share online. It’s also very clear that both teens and parents see this as an important issue: About six-in-ten teens say that cyberbullying is a major problem for people their age, and a similar share of parents say they worry about their teen being harassed or bullied online. In fact, parents are one of the few groups that teens give relatively high marks when asked how they are doing at addressing cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying is becoming more present in people’s minds due to the recent research, documentaries and news stories about it. How do you think this contributes to the Center’s work, as well as to broader research on technology and its impact on society?

The issue of cyberbullying has been front and center in the public consciousness lately, with a number of lawmakers and first lady Melania Trump taking a stand on the subject. A number of states have enacted legislation on the topic, and school districts across the country are looking for ways to deal with the issue. We hope this research helps to shed light on the extent to which harassment and bullying have become a common feature of teen life and brings teens’ own voices and experiences to the broader debate.

Cyberbullying will inevitably change as technology does. Looking forward, are there ways that your team would like to expand the research?

One of the biggest policy questions surrounding this topic is how the public reconciles the desire for people being able to speak their mind freely, while simultaneously ensuring that people can still feel welcome and safe online. Our research with adults has found that Americans are divided on this question, and they can struggle to find consensus on what sorts of behaviors cross the line into outright harassment. There is a lot of work to be done to unpack public perceptions of these deeper issues that often underscore debates about online harassment.

In addition, our teens survey shows that young people generally have a negative assessment of how key groups (with the exception of their parents) are tackling cyberbullying. It would be worth understanding why teens feel this way and hearing their thoughts on what – if anything – can be done to curtail bad online behavior.

• Methodological Research
• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Online Privacy & Security
• Platforms & Services
• Privacy Rights
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

A.W. Geiger is a former associate digital producer and writer for Pew Research Center .

Online opt-in polls can produce misleading results, especially for young people and Hispanic adults

Who are you the art and science of measuring identity, q&a: how we used large language models to identify guests on popular podcasts, q&a: how – and why – we’re changing the way we study tech adoption, state of the news media methodology, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

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

• International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 8(4):167-173
• 8(4):167-173

• Department of Education of the Philippines

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Christopher J. Ferguson
• Claudia San Miguel

• Patricia Sanchez

• Y.S. Lincoln
• J ADOLESCENCE
• Lorelie Ann Banzon-Librojo

• J ADOLESCENT HEALTH

• Marla E. Eisenberg
• Kathryn S. Whitted

• Anne Mckenzie
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Social Studies
• High School

For each of the following research topics, choose whether it's likely to be too broad, too narrow, or just about right. Bullying

Costance641 is waiting for your help., expert-verified answer.

• 44.8K answers
• 335.9M people helped

The categorization of the research topics as to whether they are too narrow, broad of just right would be:

• Bullying - Too broad
• The effect of social media bullying on the academic performance of sixth - graders - Just about right

How to categorize the research topics ?

Bullying is a broad and multifaceted issue that can encompass various types of bullying (e.g., physical, verbal, cyberbullying), occur in different settings (e.g., schools, workplaces, online), and involve individuals of all ages. Without specifying the scope or focus of the research, it would be challenging to conduct a comprehensive study on this broad topic.

The second topic is more specific and focused compared to the previous topic. It narrows down the scope of research to a particular type of bullying (social media bullying), a specific age group (sixth-graders), and a clear outcome of interest (academic performance).

The full question is:

For each of the following research topics, choose whether it's likely to be too broad, too narrow, or just about right.

The effect of social media bullying on the academic performance of sixth - graders

Still have questions?

Get more answers for free, you might be interested in, new questions in social studies.

• Alzheimer's disease & dementia
• Arthritis & Rheumatism
• Attention deficit disorders
• Autism spectrum disorders
• Biomedical technology
• Diseases, Conditions, Syndromes
• Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Gastroenterology
• Gerontology & Geriatrics
• Health informatics
• Inflammatory disorders
• Medical economics
• Medical research
• Medications
• Neuroscience
• Obstetrics & gynaecology
• Oncology & Cancer
• Ophthalmology
• Overweight & Obesity
• Parkinson's & Movement disorders
• Psychology & Psychiatry
• Radiology & Imaging
• Sleep disorders
• Sports medicine & Kinesiology
• Vaccination
• Breast cancer
• Cardiovascular disease
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• Colon cancer
• Coronary artery disease
• Heart attack
• Heart disease
• High blood pressure
• Kidney disease
• Lung cancer
• Multiple sclerosis
• Myocardial infarction
• Ovarian cancer
• Post traumatic stress disorder
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Schizophrenia
• Skin cancer
• Type 2 diabetes
• Full List »

share this!

June 10, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Researchers find risk of suffering school bullying triples in children with autistic spectrum disorders

by University of Rovira i Virgili

A research team from the URV's Nutrition and Mental Health group has studied the prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in schoolchildren in the Tarragona region. The research, which also determined the extent to which these disorders affect children's social relationships, collected data on 7,000 pupils, of whom 700 were studied in detail.

The work is published in the journal Autism .

The results determined that 1.5% of the children had ASD, while 5% were diagnosed with ADHD. This study, known as EPINED, has discovered that the risk of suffering from abuse, isolation or social exclusion can triple in those children who suffer from one of these disorders.

In the first part of the study, Núria Voltas, Fina Canals, Paula Morales and Carmen Hernández, researchers from the Department of Psychology, determined the prevalence—the number of cases diagnosed at a given time and in a given environment—of autistic spectrum disorders and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder in children in the Tarragona area. To do so, they screened more than 7,000 children in two age groups, namely pupils in the fourth year of Infant Education and pupils in the fifth year of Primary Education (PE) from a representative sample of the whole province.

By means of tests answered by teachers and families, they were able to identify those cases with signs of presenting either of the two disorders. From the screening, a sample of 700 children was selected, including a control group to evaluate the correct functioning of the methodology.

After conducting interviews with the children and their families and studying all the cases individually, the researchers determined that, of the children in the sample, 1.5% had ASD and 5% had ADHD. "We also assessed other children with difficulties but who fell outside the diagnosis because they did not have all the symptoms. If we include them, we can say that 3.5% of children had some symptom of ASD," said the researchers.

Another aim of the research was to determine whether and to what extent infants diagnosed with any of these disorders feel socially disadvantaged. The researchers found that 35% of primary school children with ADHD reported experiencing some form of bullying, isolation or social exclusion. "This phenomenon is aggravated in children with combined ADHD, i.e. with all the typical symptoms: attention deficit, hyperactivity and impulsivity," explained Núria Voltas.

The researchers also found that 58% schoolchildren with ASD, who are characterized by behavioral problems and difficulties in social interaction and communication, felt displaced and excluded.

"Children with ASD want to relate to others but don't know how to; in the case of ADHD, they are so muted and intense that the disorder influences their relationship with others," explains Fina Canals. These characteristics mean that their behavior can be perceived as "strange" or "annoying" by their peers. For schoolchildren without any type of diagnosed disorder, the index of perceived harassment, isolation or social exclusion stands at 18%.

The research also revealed that in cases with both disorders, i.e. those with comorbid disorders, there was a stronger feeling of social isolation. These results do not refer to children with ASD and ADHD in the fourth year of Infant Education as they are not mature enough to answer the tests on their perception of victimization by bullying.

"Bullying has long-lasting consequences and increases the feeling of fear towards social relationships; having ASD or ADHD and feeling victimized increases emotional problems ," says Fina Canals. When these people grow up and enter adolescence and adulthood, they present "very high rates of mental health disorders" and a "high risk of suicide." For this reason, the authors of the research call for anti-bullying programs to include specific measures for at-risk groups.

Explore further

Feedback to editors

How older people explore new spaces could suggest cognitive decline and dementia

Lab-grown 'mini-guts' could help in development of new and more personalized treatments for Crohn's disease

6 hours ago

Opioid giant's tactics to influence doctors revealed in court documents

7 hours ago

Taking the fall: How stunt performers struggle with reporting head trauma

8 hours ago

New findings may lead to improved treatments for chemotherapy-resistant ovarian cancer

Study shows first evidence of sex differences in how pain can be produced

Upending conventional wisdom, researchers say cannabis use doesn't hinder PTSD therapy

New study predicts worsening dengue spread in Mexico and Brazil

9 hours ago

Research team develops first-in-kind protocol for creating 'wired miniature brains'

Study reveals target for reversing scar tissue after heart attack

Related stories.

Sleep disorders found to differ for autism, ADHD versus typical development

Jan 22, 2024

Motor skills, sensory features differ in autism with, without ADHD

Mar 22, 2024

Younger children are more commonly diagnosed with ADHD than their older classmates, says new study

Jun 6, 2024

What's the difference between ADD and ADHD?

Apr 24, 2024

One in 10 U.S. school-age kids have ADHD report finds

Mar 20, 2024

Hyperactivity and impulsivity in childhood associated with increased risk of social isolation

Mar 29, 2023

Recommended for you

Reviewing systemic problems for autistic adults in STEMM: Q&A

Jun 7, 2024

Brain overgrowth dictates autism severity, new research suggests

Jun 5, 2024

Researchers call for better detection of health conditions for autistic people

Jun 4, 2024

Eye-tracking techniques could help primary care providers diagnose autism sooner, more accurately

May 31, 2024

Study connects genetic risk for autism to changes observed in the brain

May 24, 2024

Let us know if there is a problem with our content

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Medical Xpress in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter