an essay on bullying at school

Essay on Bullying in Schools

School bullying can be defined as the situation in which one or more students (The Bullies) single out a child (victim) and intend in behavior intended to cause discomfort or harm the child. A bully will repeatedly target the same victim several times. Under all circumstances, bullies have an advantage over the victim as they possess more power. Compared to the victim, bullies usually have physically stronger with a large circle of friends or higher social standing. Bullying can inflict emotional distress, humiliation, and physical harm. More than 95% of learning institutions experience bullying globally. Bullying must be meet a specific rationale to be considered bullying. Such requirements include repetitiveness, recurrent imbalance of power, and provocation. Bullying can occur in schools, on campus, or the outskirts of school, but its setting must have been created within the school. Regardless of the position, all the stakeholders in a school context, such as parents, educators, children, and community members, are required to contribute to the prevention of bullying in schools. School bullying is increasingly becoming a social problem in modern society. Ideally, there are several types of school bullying attached to different causes. The effects of school bullying can be classified in psychological, economical, and academic dimensions.

Types of Bullying in Schools

The common types of bullying in a school setting include verbal, sexual, cyber, psychological, physical, and higher education bullying. Notably, victims in a learning context can experience bullying regardless of age. The aforementioned types of bullying are further classified as either direct or indirect bullying. Direct bullying is defined as an attack that is openly targeted to a victim. Direct bullying is either verbal or physical. Contrary, indirect bullying involves different forms of relational aggression that leads to social isolation through defaming one’s reputation and manipulating the conscience of others into falsehood. Indirect bullying is usually hard and subtle to detect in a school setting (Goodwin et al. 330). If undertaken by a group of bullies, direct and indirect bullying can be referred to as pack bullying. The different types of bullying can be defined either directly or indirectly relative to the implication to the victim.

Physical bullying occurs when there is unwanted physical contact between the victim and the bully. Physical contact can be hand to hand or tripping and throwing items at others that can cause physical harm. The second is emotional bullying. Emotional bullying can be defined as hurting others emotionally by negatively influencing their moods and psyche. The primary examples of emotional bullying include; belittling, spreading false information, and defamation. Verbal bullying can be defined as the usage of slanderous language or statements causing emotional distress to other people. Examples of verbal bullying include harassing, mocking, teasing, and threatening to cause harm. Finally, Cyberbullying is attached to the evolution of the internet and computers. The use of computers in bullying at schoolyards is on the surge. In most instances, schools experience difficulties in controlling cyberbullying as experiences are beyond the school fraternity.

The other common types of school bullying are sexual bullying and higher education bullying. Sexual bullying is either non-physical or physical, grounded on the gender or sexuality of the victim. In most instances, sexual bullying is undertaken by the male gender. The United States department of education reports an average of 60% of expulsions and suspensions from learning institutions attached to sexual bullying (Goodwin et al. 328). In most instances, the young ones are frames into tricks to share their nudes, after which there are forced to fulfill specific sexual demands at the expense of exposure. Higher education bullying occurs at the campus or college level. Around 95% of students have reported having been bullied at the college level. Higher education bullying results in depression and suicide in most cases.

Measures to Control Bullying

The main approaches in controlling bullying in school settings include the implementation of educative programs, creating a positive school climate, engaging parents, encouraging open communication and punishments. These techniques, however, vary depending on the learning level and the prevalence of bullying in the particular period. Education programs involve creating awareness to parents, students, and teachers regarding what constitutes bullying. Educative programs are instrumental in creating insight into the harmful nature of whichever kind of bullying. All the stakeholders within the school fraternity are enrolled in sessions of creating awareness on the signs of bullying and the most appropriate intervention criteria. The most common ways in educating on bullying include role-play, identification and reporting discussions, and other approaches to decline being involved in bullying. Nickerson(19) argued that educative programs are 62% effective in curbing the prevalence of bullying in learning institutions.

Secondly, schools can help in the prevention of bullying by promoting a positive school climate. Schools with a positive climate are presumed to have a healthy development, while the negative school climate results in a surge in bullying cases, unsafe feelings, victimization, and aggression. While the elements of positive school culture vary from norms relative to power, relationships, and feelings, it’s evident that a positive climate is a product of a conscious process that becomes self-reinforcing (Goodwin et al. 330). The main determinants of a positive climate include leadership and integrity in learning institutions. Therefore, the ability to have cognitive leaders is an advantage of coping with bullying in schools.

Third, schools should engage parents. Parents spend most of their time with children at the primary level. While there are many stakeholders involved in the lives of the children, parents play an essential role in understanding their behavior. Engaging parents in bullying scenarios means initiating communication on the progress of the children in terms of behavior and performance. Integration between parents and teachers is essential in providing consistent approaches that help yield a more productive and appropriate behavior (Nickerson 22). Parents can help their children recognize while being bullied by others. However, the approach is not viable in urban schools as parents experience difficulties establishing trust with schools.

Finally, schools should initiate open communication techniques. Open communication is essential in building rapport. Having open communication means that students can disclose their problems to teachers. Open communication helps the teachers gain more insight into existing bullies in the school (Nickerson 20). For instance, classroom meetings in grade 4 will enable teachers to obtain crucial information in enacting more controls to curb bullying in schools. Teachers are expected to listen carefully during the class meetings to avoid inflicting fear on the learners. Students should be assured of confidentiality and privacy of the information obtained as any disclosure might attract further bullying.

Effects of School Bullying 

The effect of school bullying can be categorized in psychological and academic dimensions. Bullying results in poor performance in school. More than 70% of learners subjected to bullying ends up recording a decline in academic performance. The results are more severe at a young age. Bullying would result in fading of interest and participation of learners in school activities as it results in unexplained injuries linked to affecting concentration (Menesini and Christina 246). The impact of bullying on educational performance is increasingly becoming imminent. Bullying installs fear in learners from attending school regularly, thus affecting their consistency and concentration in class. Based on this explanation, it’s evident that bullied students will experience difficulties in achieving their academic goals. Moreover, bullying is linked with an unsafe learning environment that creates a negative climate of fear and insecurities and the perception that teachers do not care about the welfare of learners, thus decline in quality of education.

Secondly, bullying is associated with psychological problems. While bullying to individuals helps them enhance their personality and perceptions as they grow, it’s presumed that bullying can risk an individual developing an antisocial personality disorder linked to committing crimes. Bullying leads to depression, anxiety, and psychosomatic symptoms, which often leads to alcohol and substance abuse by the victims at a later stage in their lives. It’s argued that victims of depression feel free and open to share their experience with others, unlike in bullying, where the victims would choose to shy talking about the feeling in fear of being bullied again. In the short run, bystanders of the bullying experience may develop the fear, guiltiness, and sadness, and if the experience persists, they might get psychologically drained (Sampson). Therefore, the victims of bullying experiences struggle with insomnia, suicidal thoughts, health problems, and depression. Bullying does affect not only the students but also their classmates and family. Feeling powerless, parents and immediate family members might fall victim to depression and emotional distress. Some parents would invest more time in protecting their children, thus affecting them psychologically and economically.

Causes of Bullying

There are numerous causes of school bullying attached to religion, socioeconomic status, race, and gender. Understanding the reasons why students chose to bully their classmates is significant to teachers in combating bullying. The National Center for Educational Statistics report established that 25% of Blacks, 22% of Caucasians, 17% of Hispanics, and 9% of Asian students were bullied in 2017 (Divecha). Some of the students that bully others have higher levels of courage and confidence and can respond aggressively if threatened by the behavior. Students at the college level get bullied on sexual matters. For instance, the subscribers to LGBTQA sexual orientation get bullied based on their decision as gay or lesbians. Moreover, bullying in schools is caused by other factors attached to families. Students from abuse and divorced families are likely to bully others due to jealousy, anger, and despair.

From the above discussion, it’s evident that school bullying in whichever capacity is detrimental to human dignity. School bullying is increasingly becoming a social problem in modern society. Ideally, there are several types of school bullying attached to different causes. The effects of school bullying can be classified in psychological, economical, and academic dimensions. The primary forms of school form such as verbal, sexual, cyber, psychological, physical, and higher education bullying are categorized into direct and indirect bullying. The intervention strategies to curb bullying should involve all the stakeholders, such as parents, teachers, and students. The main approaches in controlling bullying in school settings include implementing educative programs, creating a positive school climate, engaging parents, and encouraging open communication and punishments.

Works Cited

Divecha, Diana. “What Are the Best Ways to Prevent Bullying in Schools?”  Greater Good , https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/what_are_the_best_ways_to_prevent_bullyi ng_in_schools

Sampson, Rana. “Center for Problem-Oriented Policing.” Arizona State University,  https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/bullying-schools-0

Menesini, Ersilia, and Christina Salmivalli. “Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions.”  Psychology, health & medicine  22.sup1 (2017): 240-253.

Goodwin, John, et al. “Bullying in schools: an evaluation of the use of drama in bullying prevention.” Journal of Creativity in Mental Health 14.3 (2019): 329-342.

Nickerson, Amanda B. “Preventing and intervening with bullying in schools: A framework for evidence- based practice.”  School Mental Health  11.1 (2019): 15-28.

Cite this page

Similar essay samples.

• Essay on the Economy of Kazakhstan
• Is a rigorous definition of organised crime necessary?
• Essay on Impacts of Airbnb on Urban Housing Markets in America
• The current advances in the biotechnological applications of stem cell...
• A discussion on Import Substitution Strategy and Export-led Growth Str...
• The Modern Japanese Family

Bullying Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on bullying.

Bullying refers to aggressive behavior so as to dominate the other person. It refers to the coercion of power over others so that one individual can dominate others. It is an act that is not one time, instead, it keeps on repeating over frequent intervals.  The person(s) who bullies others can be termed as bullies, who make fun of others due to several reasons. Bullying is a result of someone’s perception of the imbalance of power.

Types of bullying :

There can be various types of bullying, like:

• Physical bullying:  When the bullies try to physically hurt or torture someone, or even touch someone without his/her consent can be termed as physical bullying .
• Verbal bullying:  It is when a person taunts or teases the other person.
• Psychological bullying:  When a person or group of persons gossip about another person or exclude them from being part of the group, can be termed as psychological bullying.
• Cyber bullying:  When bullies make use of social media to insult or hurt someone. They may make comments bad and degrading comments on the person at the public forum and hence make the other person feel embarrassed. Bullies may also post personal information, pictures or videos on social media to deteriorate some one’s public image.

Read Essay on Cyber Bullying

Bullying can happen at any stage of life, such as school bullying, College bullying, Workplace bullying, Public Place bullying, etc. Many times not only the other persons but the family members or parents also unknowingly bully an individual by making constant discouraging remarks. Hence the victim gradually starts losing his/her self-esteem, and may also suffer from psychological disorders.

A UNESCO report says that 32% of students are bullied at schools worldwide. In our country as well, bullying is becoming quite common. Instead, bullying is becoming a major problem worldwide. It has been noted that physical bullying is prevalent amongst boys and psychological bullying is prevalent amongst girls.

Prevention strategies:

In the case of school bullying, parents and teachers can play an important role. They should try and notice the early symptoms of children/students such as behavioral change, lack of self-esteem, concentration deficit, etc. Early recognition of symptoms, prompt action and timely counseling can reduce the after-effects of bullying on the victim.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Anti-bullying laws :

One should be aware of the anti-bullying laws in India. Awareness about such laws may also create discouragement to the act of bullying amongst children and youngsters. Some information about anti-bullying laws is as follows:

• Laws in School: To put a notice on the notice board that if any student is found bullying other students then he/she can be rusticated. A committee should be formed which can have representatives from school, parents, legal, etc.
• Laws in Colleges: The government of India, in order to prevent ragging , has created guideline called “UGC regulations on curbing the menace of ragging in Higher Education Institutions,2009”.
• Cyber Bullying Laws: The victim can file a complaint under the Indian Penal Code .

Conclusion:

It is the duty of the parents to constantly preach their children about not bullying anyone and that it is wrong. Hence, if we, as a society need to grow and develop then we have to collectively work towards discouraging the act of bullying and hence make our children feel secure.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Bullying — School Bullies: Unmasking the Causes, Effects, and Solutions

School Bullies: Unmasking The Causes, Effects, and Solutions

• Categories: Bullying Youth Violence

About this sample

Words: 706 |

Published: Sep 7, 2023

Words: 706 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The causes of school bullying, the effects of school bullying, addressing school bullying: potential solutions, the role of cyberbullying, conclusion: a collective responsibility.

• Family Environment: Some bullies come from dysfunctional or abusive households, where they may witness aggressive behavior or experience neglect, leading to a lack of empathy and poor coping mechanisms.
• Peer Influence: Bullying can be perpetuated by peer groups or friends who encourage or reinforce aggressive behavior, creating a culture of harassment within school settings.
• Low Self-Esteem: Some bullies engage in aggressive behavior as a means of boosting their self-esteem or compensating for feelings of insecurity or inadequacy.
• Power Imbalance: Bullying often occurs in situations where there is a perceived power imbalance, such as differences in physical strength, popularity, or social status.
• Media and Technology: Exposure to violent media, cyberbullying through online platforms, and social media can contribute to the normalization of aggressive behavior among young people.
• Psychological Impact: Victims of bullying often experience anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and an increased risk of developing mental health issues that can persist into adulthood.
• Academic Consequences: Bullying can disrupt a student's ability to concentrate, leading to a decline in academic performance and a reduced enthusiasm for learning.
• Physical Health: Bullying can lead to physical health problems, such as headaches, stomachaches, and sleep disturbances, due to the stress and anxiety it induces.
• Social Isolation: Victims of bullying may withdraw from social activities, resulting in feelings of isolation and a diminished sense of belonging.
• Long-Term Effects: The effects of bullying can persist into adulthood, impacting relationships, career prospects, and overall quality of life.
• Educational Programs: Schools can implement anti-bullying programs that promote empathy, conflict resolution skills, and respect for diversity, fostering a culture of inclusivity.
• Teacher Training: Educators should receive training on recognizing and addressing bullying behavior, creating safe and supportive classroom environments.
• Parental Involvement: Parents can play a crucial role by monitoring their children's online activities, fostering open communication, and actively addressing any signs of bullying.
• Peer Support: Encouraging students to act as allies and report instances of bullying can help create a supportive network within schools.
• Legal Frameworks: Policymakers can enact and enforce anti-bullying legislation, ensuring that schools take appropriate measures to prevent and respond to bullying incidents.
• Mental Health Support: Schools should offer access to counseling services for both victims and perpetrators of bullying to address underlying emotional and psychological issues.
• Digital Literacy Education: Schools should educate students about responsible online behavior, digital etiquette, and the consequences of cyberbullying.
• Reporting Mechanisms: Establish clear channels for reporting cyberbullying incidents and ensure swift and appropriate responses.
• Parental Involvement: Parents should actively engage with their children's online activities, promote responsible internet use, and be vigilant about signs of cyberbullying.
• Platform Responsibility: Social media platforms should enforce anti-cyberbullying policies, respond to user reports, and take steps to prevent online harassment.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

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

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

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

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 913 words

4 pages / 1795 words

2 pages / 1024 words

2 pages / 998 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

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

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

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

Related Essays on Bullying

Bullying is a pervasive issue that affects individuals across all ages and demographics. It refers to the repeated aggressive behavior towards someone with the intention to cause harm, eTher physically or emotionally. Addressing [...]

Bullying is a distressing phenomenon that affects individuals of all ages, genders, and backgrounds. The repercussions of bullying extend far beyond its immediate impact, with grave consequences that can include psychological [...]

Body shaming, though pervasive, is not insurmountable. With concerted efforts across educational, media, and personal domains, a future where every individual feels valued and accepted regardless of their body type is [...]

Bullying is a pervasive issue that affects children across the globe, with devastating consequences. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, one out of every five students reports being bullied. This alarming [...]

What is bullying? In these research paper we are going to discuss a very difficult topic which is bullying. We will go in depth and we will analyze what causes bullying, what is bullying, types of bullying and much more. [...]

This research assignment is for the analysis and expansion in understanding cause and effect of Bullying in adolescence, and how this topic relates to the many stages of development. It is critical for the further understanding [...]

Related Topics

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

Where do you want us to send this sample?

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

Be careful. This essay is not unique

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

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

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

Please check your inbox.

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

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

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

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

What you need to know about school violence and bullying

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

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

What is school violence?

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

What forms may school violence take?

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

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

Who perpetrates school violence?

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

What are the main reasons why children are bullied?

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

What are the consequences of school violence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is school violence always gender-based?           

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Eakachai Leesin/Shutterstock.com

More on this subject

Other recent articles

Article Call for written proposals for a work assignment with UNESCO Office in Dar es Salaam 23 April 2024

School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is for this reason that there has been need for the intervention of the community and the government to address the issue of bullying schools lest the school environment becomes the worst place to be in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 6). School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/

"School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." IvyPanda , 6 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention'. 6 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." April 6, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

1. IvyPanda . "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." April 6, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "School Bullying: Causes and Police Prevention." April 6, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/bullying-in-schools/.

• Character Traits of Bullying
• The “Bully-Free” Initiative: Bullying in Education
• Workplace Bullies Are Flawed Personalities
• Bullying, Facts and Countermeasures
• Bullying in School
• Social Influence on Bullying in Schools
• Experience of Young People Being Bullied
• School Bullying: Case Analysis
• Bullying in the Schools
• “Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying” by Frisen et al.
• Critique of the Argument: Is the Cost of A College A Bargain?
• Maintaining Safety in the Primary School: The Importance of Duty of Care for Students
• Duty of Care Policy Explained
• Current Educational Issues
• Most Popular Educational Issues and Points to Improve It

• 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

93k Accesses

13 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Study outcome

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

Primary exposure

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

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

Statistical analyses

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

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

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

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Code availability

Not applicable.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Håkan Källmén

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

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

Theoretical Perspectives and Two Explanatory Models of School Bullying

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 17 October 2022

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ken Rigby 1  

19k Accesses

7 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article examines alternative and supplementary ways in which theorists and researchers have sought to account for bullying behavior among students in schools. Contemporary explanations acknowledge the variety, complexity, and interactivity of both person and environmental factors in determining acts of bullying in schools. Two explanatory models or frameworks are described: (i) an adaptation of the theory of planned behavior proposed by Ajzen (Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50:179–211,  1991 ); and (ii) the comprehensive model of bullying (CMB) by Rigby (Multiperspectivity in school bullying, page 64. Routlege,  2021b ). The strengths and limitations of these models are discussed, together with applications in addressing school bullying.

Similar content being viewed by others

Understanding Teachers’ Likelihood of Intervention in Bullying Situations: Testing the Theory of Planned Behavior

Danelien A. E. van Aalst, Gijs Huitsing & René Veenstra

The Intent Behind Bullying: an Application and Expansion of the Theory of Planned Behaviour

Lindsey S. Jaber, Christina M. Rinaldi, … Jesse Scott

A Systematic Review on Primary School Teachers’ Characteristics and Behaviors in Identifying, Preventing, and Reducing Bullying

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The rise of concern since the early 1990s over bullying in schools has led to a proliferation of theoretical explanations for why it is so prevalent among schoolchildren. Estimates derived from 71 countries reported by UNESCO ( 2019 ) suggest that around 32% of schoolchildren between the ages of 9 and 15 years were bullied for one or more days during the previous month. Analyses of trend data by UNESCO have shown that despite increasing attention to the problem, over half (55%) of these countries have reported no significant reductions. Although some carefully evaluated interventions to reduce bullying in schools have been modestly successful (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 ), a large majority have had little or no effect. At the same time, numerous studies have shown that bullying behavior has the effect of seriously reducing the wellbeing and mental health and learning of victimized students (Armitage, 2021 ). In the light of these findings, more effective means of intervening to reduce bullying are needed, and these need to be grounded in an understanding of why bullying takes place in schools. This article seeks to examine a range of theoretical explanations for bullying behavior and describes two models that exhibit both strengths and limitations in describing why bullying occurs in schools and how it may be countered.

Explanations must begin an acceptable definition of bullying. It is conceived as a subset of aggression. Although some views on what precisely constitutes bullying behavior remain controversial, the formulation of the definition proposed by Olweus ( 1993 , p.9) has been broadly accepted by most researchers: that is, “a student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed repeatedly and over time to negative actions on the part of one or more other students.” Crucial elements generally include (i) bullying is intentional and deliberate; (ii) it occurs in a situation in which there is an imbalance of power; and (iii) it is repeated over time. What may constitute “negative actions” has expanded more recently to include not only direct actions such as striking people and face-to-face verbal abuse, but also indirect negative actions such as exclusion, rumor spreading, and cyber bullying. In general terms, bullying has been viewed as a systematic abuse of power (Smith & Sharp, 1994 ) and by Tattum and Tattum ( 1992 , p.147) as “a conscious, willful desire to hurt another person and put him/her under stress.” This latter view is inadequate as a definition of bullying, which is recognized as a behavior. However, it draws attention to the motivational core of bullying, which may be seen as a state of mind, specifically a “desire.” Whether bullying can best be understood as a consequence of individual volition, as distinct from broader considerations such as group dynamics and the caring-ness or otherwise of the social milieu, has been questioned in a recent set of recommendations by a UNESCO committee on school violence (Cornu et al., 2022 ).

This article provides a brief survey of theoretical perspectives that have been thought to be relevant to understanding and explaining bullying in schools, together with supportive empirical findings. Two models purporting to explain bullying are described, linking, where possible, with theoretical formulations and reported findings. The models are then critically discussed as to their adequacy and potential value in assisting schools in addressing the problem of bullying.

Theoretical Explanations

Theoretical explanations of bullying may be categorized under three general headings: (1) the nature of the beast, an idiom that conveys the inherent or essential quality or character of something, which cannot be changed and must be accepted (see Anderson, 2022 ); (2) the nature of the environment, that is, the aggregate of external agents or conditions—physical, biological, social, and cultural—that influence the functions of an organism (APA, 2022 ); and (3) interaction between (1) and (2). Although different emphases may be placed on the “nature of the beast” and/or the nature of the environment in explaining bullying in schools, it is generally understood that a full explanation of bullying requires an examination of how each contributes and how the two interact with one another. According to a heuristic formula proposed by Lewin ( 1936 ), B  =  f ( P , E ), where B is the behavior (in this case “bullying”) and P stands for person—that is, the “beast” in question—and E is the environment.

Evolutionary psychology has produced a basic explanation of bullying that emphasizes what is “given” in the nature of living beings. Bullying is seen as an evolved adaptive strategy, practiced by both non-humans and humans, that offers benefits to its practitioners through the achievement of somatic, sexual, and dominance goals (Volk et al., 2012 ). Evolutionary theories of bullying acknowledge the significant role that the environment may play in the development of bullying behavior. However, as pointed out by Volk et al., despite substantial variations in environmental conditions, bullying among students is prevalent in all countries.

Related to the evolutionary view of bullying is the so-called dominance theory (Evans & Smokowski, 2016 ), according to which individuals and groups are motivated to bully others in order to gain and secure social capital, that is, to the benefits gained from social relationships (Putnam, 2000 ). Dominance per se may be for some individuals a means to an end, rather than an end in itself.

Consistent with the claims of evolutionary psychologists, there is evidence that the tendency of children to bully others is influenced by genetic factors. For instance, it has been reported that identical twins are significantly more likely to be similar in their tendency to bully others than are fraternal twins, even when the identical twins are reared apart (Ball et al., 2008 ). More recently, genetic material derived from analyses of samples of blood and saliva has been used to predict bullying behavior of children, as rated by fellow students (Musci et al., 2018 ). This is not to deny the influence of environmental factors but rather to support the view that genetics play an influential role in explaining bullying behavior.

Some explanations of bullying behavior emphasize the role of personality conceived as a set of relatively enduring psychological characteristics that affect the way people behave. For instance, Farrell and Volk ( 2017 ) see bullying as the product of an anti-social personality described by them as a predatory, exploitive personality trait. Research findings based on personality assessments indicate that children who bully tend to be relatively extraverted, psychotic, sadistic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, disagreeable, and deficient in emotional empathy (Vangeel et al., 2017 ). These qualities are, to some degree, genetically determined (Veldkamp et al., 2019 ). A further claim is that bullying behavior can be explained by psychoanalytical theory, according to which bullying can be seen as the outcome of a disposition to protect one’s ego through the use of projection and/or scapegoating (Dixon & Smith, 2011 ; Wampold, 2015 ).

In explaining aggression, a central role has sometimes been accorded to the consequences of frustration and/or being placed under considerable strain through negative life events with which a person is unable to cope. The classic definition of frustration in psychology is any event or stimulus that prevents an individual from attaining a goal and its accompanying reinforcement quality (Dollard et al., 1939 ). On the basis of empirical studies, it has been reported that experiencing frustration, even if unintended, commonly leads to a person acting aggressively (Berkowitz, 1989 ). This may include bullying behavior. For instance, levels of school bullying have been reported as relatively high in schools in England where community resentment and associated frustration have been aroused by increases in foreign migration (Denti, 2021 ). For some students and families, such perceived “intrusion” may constitute a strain leading to anti-social acts such as bullying (Agnew, 1992 ).

At the same time, not every instance of frustration or negative life events leads to acts of interpersonal aggression. Hence, one aspect or dimension of personality relevant to bullying is tolerance of frustration. As predicted, Potard et al. ( 2021 ) have confirmed that adolescent schoolchildren in France who were identified as bullies were more likely than those not involved bullying to report a relatively low level of tolerance of frustration on a Frustration Discomfort Scale. This result was significant on two subscales, one relating to entitlement, “I can’t stand it when people go against my wishes,” and one to achievement, “I can’t bear the frustration of not achieving my goals.”

Persons may be described according to cognitive capacities or modes of thinking that are related to bullying. Explanations of bullying may be derived from cognitive theory as developed by Bandura ( 1999 ). It has been reported that children who bully tend to be morally disengaged (Hymel & Bonnanno,  2014 ). They commonly invent reasons why a victim deserves to be hurt and are untroubled by any scruples (Thornberg & Jungert, 2014 ). It has been further claimed that having a greater cognitive capacity for discerning what others may be thinking, as in theory of mind, may advantage some prospective bullies who choose to exploit this capacity (Smith, 2017 ).

The person ( P ) in the Lewin formulation may also include age and gender. Both these factors have been found to be related to bullying behavior. Increases in its prevalence in schools have been reported as occurring in early adolescence. Boys are more commonly reported as perpetrators, at least as far as physical bullying is concerned; however, this difference may not extend to other forms of bullying, such as verbal and cyber bullying (Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017 ) and can depend on the cultural background (Rigby et al., 2019 ).

The Environment ( E )

The most general theory to account for behavior including bullying is reinforcement theory, as propounded by Skinner ( 1953 ). This theory dismisses the need to postulate any internal states, such as “desire” to explain bullying behavior. It is claimed that all bullying can best be understood as a consequence of certain actions, defined as bullying, being taken and positively reinforced. Positive behavior support programs in schools to counter bullying are based on the assumption that bullying will cease if it is not reinforced (Ross & Horner, 2009 ). In more recent years, learning theorists have sought to explain bullying by expanding the “purer” Skinnerian version of how learning occurs to include more cognitive factors and the importance of modeling in the acquisition of bullying behaviors (Bandura, 1977 ).

Other explanations specify features of the environment that give rise to bullying. These may include physical features such as the ambient temperature in one’s locality (Wei et al., 2017 ) and the built environment in which one spends time (Fram & Dickman, 2012 ). More commonly, attention is paid to the social environment, past and present. Following the seminal work of Bronfenbrenner ( 2009 ), a variety of social systems and influences have been identified as contributing to bullying behavior (See Espelage, 2014 ; Swearer & Hymel, 2015 ; Hornby, 2015 ). These include interacting microsystems in the immediate environment, such as the home, the local neighborhood, and the school. Other more expansive systems involve society and culture, within which government policies, the Law, and the media may play a part (Rigby, 2021b ). Each of these ecological systems is conceived as interacting with and influencing each other in all aspects of the children’s lives, including their interpersonal relations at school, and may, in some circumstances, result in bullying.

Research findings have supported some of the claims that aspects of the social ecology may influence the occurrence of bullying in schools. The home environment of children who experience cold, authoritarian parenting has been reported as being more likely than others to bully their peers at school (Connell et al., 2016 ; Rigby, 2013 ). Levels of reported bullying in school have been found to be much higher in some neighborhoods and communities than others; for example, they have been reported to be significantly higher in countries with greater economic inequality (Elgar et al., 2009 ). The ethos of the school attended by a child, as indicated by prevailing attitudes, values, and behaviors of students and teachers, is reportedly related to how children interact with their peers, with bullying perpetration being less prevalent in schools in which children feel supported by school staff (Modin et al., 2017 ; Thornberg et al., 2018 ). Social norms endorsed by peer or friendship groups, especially in relation to negative treatment of outsiders and those against whom there is bias or prejudice, are seen as contributing to bullying (Perkins et al., 2011 ).

The complexity of explaining bullying within an ecological framework becomes evident when the nature of interactions between the factors is considered. For example, the influence of an oppressive home environment may have more adverse consequences for a child when combined with negative school ethos, or have a less negative effect if combined with positive relations with teachers.

Interactions Between P and E

Reverting to the Lewin formulation, as adapted, B (bullying) =  f ( P , E ), one may ask how in practice this may help in explaining bullying. It requires us to consider how effects traceably to the environment are modified in accordance with the nature of individual persons. One might expect some ecological factors to influence bullying behavior more so or less so, according to the personal qualities of the child. As an example, a child with a low tolerance of frustration may become aggressive and engage in bullying in one school, but not in another school where he or she is helped by a teacher to control negative emotions. The relationship between a person and the environment can be viewed as reciprocal. A person is not only acted on by the environment but may also act to modify the environment, which in turn may produce changes in the person. For instance, learning not to over-react to provocation may lead to a change in how a child is treated by others at school, that is, produce a change in the social environment and, as a consequence, how he or she subsequently treats others.

A number of heuristic models have been constructed to identify factors, relationships, and inter-relationships that are thought to be relevant to understanding and explaining bullying in schools. They may differ in two ways: first according to the selection of variables considered relevant and, second, whether they indicate a “process” according to which selected independent variables bring about bullying behavior.

A wide range of relevant variables have been suggested by Astor and Benbenishty ( 2018 ). These are differentiated according to whether they are (i) internal factors, that is, ones that operate within a school, such as school climate, school leadership, availability of resources, and disciplinary procedures, and (ii) external factors, such as home background, neighborhood, and the mass media. Internal and external factors are seen as interacting in ways that may change over time. Person factors, apart from age and gender, are not considered; genetic influences or personality or attitude variables are not seen as playing any part. Acknowledging that evidence for the associations between measures of the factors is correlational, the authors do not claim directional, causal links between the variables. They point out, for instance, that a reduction in bullying in a school may result in an improvement in the school climate, which may further reduce bullying prevalence. Whilst their contribution notes a wide range of ecological factors that may influence bullying behavior, they do not attempt to show how such factors may, in combination, determine bullying behavior. The two models to be examined in this article describe or imply a “process” according to which environmental and person-related variables in combination give rise to bullying behavior.

The first model is derived from the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980 ), further elaborated by Ajzen ( 1991 ) in the theory of planned behavior. In an adaptation of this model (Rigby, 1997 ), three factors were identified as interacting and contributing to the intention to bully someone, (i) personal attitudes towards bullying behavior, seen as a consequence of a history of reinforcement following acts of bullying, (ii) perceived or subjective norms regarding bullying, and (iii) perceived behavioral control, that is, belief in one’s capacity to carry out the action of bullying. Factors (i) and (iii) are regarded as related to person. Normative influences, filtered through individual perceptions, relate to the environment. Collectively, these factors were thought to predict intention to act. Ajzen claimed that the intention to act is closely related to actually doing so. Thus, if a person has a positive attitude towards bullying behavior, believes that significant others, for example, a friendship group, actually support bullying behavior, and holds the belief that he or she is able to bully someone, then, according to the model, bullying is more likely to result. Unlike the model proposed by Astor and Benbenishty, hypothesized relationships predicting bullying behavior are testable (see Fig.  1 ).

Application of the model of planned behavior to bullying, based on Ajzen ( 1991 )

The planned behavior model has some theoretical and empirical support. It draws upon principles of reinforcement theory as applied in bullying interventions (Ross & Horner, 2009 ) and also upon social cognitive theory in highlighting the influence of perceived social norms among students (Burns et al., 2008 ; Salmivalli, 2010 ). The model includes the factor of perceived capability to perform an act of bullying, thereby recognizing that it can occur in circumstances in which there is an imbalance of power favoring the bully (Olweus, 1993 ). This model has used in several studies of adolescent schoolchildren to predict intention to bully (Rigby, 1997 ) and, more specifically, to engage in cyber bullying (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2014 ; Auemaneekul et al., 2020 ; Siriporn, 2021 ). In each study, all three factors, independently and collectively, made significant contributions.

A second model is more comprehensive in its inclusion of factors that may influence bullying behavior and also includes a description of how what may follow once the intention to bully has been made. The comprehensive model of bullying (CMB) as described by Rigby ( 2021b ) is distinctive in being based largely on the assumption made by Tattum and Tattum that bullying behavior is driven primarily by a desire on the part of a perpetrator to hurt or place someone under stress. Desire is seen here as a disposition or state of mind to act to bring about a specific outcome (Anscombe, 2000 ; Rigby, 2012a , b , 2021b ). It assumes that this hypothesized desire is determined by genetic or personality factors, together with a range of ecological factors. The stronger the influence in increasing the desire to hurt or place someone under stress, the more likely it is that a child will engage in aggressive and possibly bullying behavior. How the hypothesized desire may be generated is suggested in Fig.  2 , together with possible sequelae.

The comprehensive bullying model (CBM)

As in the formulation of Astor and Benbenishty, a number of relevant environmental factors are identified. These include an authoritarian and abusive home background (Georgiou et al., 2013 ), a troublesome neighborhood (Bowes et al., 2009 ), and a negative school ethos (Modin et al.,  2017 ) as indicated by negative relations between students and staff members. Negative and non-accepting attitudes towards other students may also contribute to bullying behavior. A qualitative study of how students in primary and secondary schools in Australia felt about “children at this school” indicated that negative judgements were expressed by 24% of the students, as in being “stupid,” “mean,” “bitchy,” “stuck up,” “uncool,” and “idiots.” Students making such judgements were also significantly more likely than others to report engaging in bullying at school (Rigby & Bortolozzo, 2013 ).

A set of person factors are also identified, including extraversion, low empathy, disagreeableness, and sadism. The environmental and person factors are seen as contributing in some way, directly or through interaction with each other, to produce a frame of mind characterized as having, in varying degrees, a desire to act hurt or pressure another person, and which under some conditions and circumstances could result in bullying behavior.

Whether children actually engage in aggressive behavior is seen to depend, in part, on whether the desire is sufficiently intense and sustained. It may dissipate over time without any aggression being expressed. Whether any aggression involves bullying (as distinct from conflict between individuals or groups of equal or similar power) may depend in part on the moral engagement or otherwise of the potential perpetrator. Morally disengaged students are seen as more likely to engage in bullying. Such disengagement is likely to be influenced by group membership and the social norms they share, as well as by personal prejudice (Iannello et al., 2021 ).

This model also draws attention to possible sequelae. These include (i) decisions made as to the person or persons to be targeted; (ii) the method(s) to be employed in carrying out the bullying, e.g., physical, verbal, and/or cyber; (iii) reactions of the targeted person(s) when the bullying is attempted, e.g., resisting and calling on help; (iv) opposing (restraining) or supporting (facilitating) bystander responses; and (v) the perceived presence and effectiveness of teacher surveillance and/or intervention. Given the perceived “successes, and especially the satisfaction it gives to the perpetrator, one might expect in some cases a cycle would be set up, with others joining in, so that the bullying becomes more difficult to stop.

Finding better, more comprehensive explanations for the occurrence of bullying in schools is an important step towards developing anti-bully policies and effective method of prevention and intervention. Many suggestions have been made as to the origins of this prevalent and harmful form of behavior. Various explanations have been proposed drawing on evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics, reinforcement theory, frustration-aggression theory, strain theory, personality theory, social ecology, and cognitive theory. The models described above draw upon some of the reported findings and theoretical explanation relating to bullying behavior and are consistent with the view that bullying is an outcome of both person and environmental factors.

The model based on the theory of planned behavior recognizes that environmental and personal factors may interact in determining bullying, for instance, perceived social norms and enduring attitudes to bullying (considered a person attribute) seen as derived from a history of reinforcement. It challenges schools to consider how negative social group norms can be countered and the part that can be played through reinforcing positive, pro-social behavior. It also recognizes that bullying necessarily involves a perceived imbalance of power, which may in some cases be reduced, arguably by teaching targeted children to be more assertive, as appropriate. However, it may be criticized in being too narrowly conceived and as not including other factors that need to be taken into account in addressing bullying, such as a genetic predisposition, home background, and school ethos. Finally, it does not recognize the central role of motivation and how a state of mind prone to bully others can be managed.

The CMB provides a more comprehensive explanation of bullying behavior. It draws attention to the contribution of a range of person and environmental factors that have been identified as potentially influencing bullying behavior. It differs from the other models in postulating a state of mind, a desire to hurt or place another under stress, that may, under some conditions, motivate and give rise to bullying behavior. Inspection of the model may enable schools to identify steps that can be taken to prevent bullying or respond effectively to actual cases.

First, in focusing on the state of mind in students, namely a desire to hurt or place another under stress as leading to bullying behavior, educators are challenged to examine what they can do to reduce unnecessary sources of frustration or strain in the school for example, by promoting interpersonal empathy (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006 ); developing a supportive and caring school environment (Smit & Scherman, 2016 ); encouraging cooperative learning (Van Ryzin & Roseth, 2019 ); and working constructively with parents (Healy & Sanders, 2014 ).

It draws attention to students in a chronic or recurrent states of hostility and how they might be helped to regulate their emotions, for example, by teaching techniques of mindfulness (Foody & Samara, 2018 ) and/or conducting motivational interviewing with students who bully and are seeking help to change their behavior (Cross et al., 2018 ).

In considering the decision-making process whereby a student takes action to bully someone, attention is directed towards the means by which moral disengagement can be discouraged among students through counselling (Campaert et al.,  2017 ).

As well as seeking to develop a school ethos that may prevent bullying, the model may encourage schools to develop more effective and appropriate intervention methods, recognizing that a failure to stop cases of bullying from continuing can set up a cycle of bullying that may become more difficult to deal with, as more students may join in the bullying (Rigby, 2012a , b , 2021a ).

It identifies the importance of bystander behavior, given the strong influence of positive bystander action in stopping cases from continuing (Hawkins et al., 2001 ; Salmivalli, 2014 ). Teachers can encourage positive bystander action to assist victims through classroom discussions (Rigby & Johnson, 2006a , 2006b ). There is, however, a danger that by their actions bystanders can draw attention to the status of victims and put them more at risk of being bullied (Healy, 2020 )–and thereby perpetuate the problem.

Limitations and Criticism

The question remains as to why given experiences, such as perceived social norms supporting bullying and abusive, authoritarian parenting, should result in the desire to hurt and in some cases bullying behavior. Possible explanations for following social norms have included the desire to belong to an admired group who approve of the bullying, the acquisition of a positive self-image, and a fear of rejection and isolation if one adopts a contrary attitude (Gross & Vostroknutov, 2022 ). Why abusive parenting and negative school ethos may lead to children bullying others may also be seen as a consequence of frustration, especially among students with low tolerance for frustration, as suggested by the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

However, arguably, not all bullying may involve an aggressive intent. The motivation may, for instance, be a desire to increase or maintain one’s status in a group and/or to be admired by some peers (Veenstra et al., 2010 ). In such cases, the aim is not to hurt, though it may well do so. Parents and others may at times encourage and reinforce such behavior, mindful that their children’s “success” (defined by “social status”) may be achieved by dominating others in ways that may be viewed as non-malign. It may therefore be that the model is limited in its application to bullying behavior that involves an intention of the bully to harm another person. It would be of interest to discover how often a desire to hurt is present in cases of bullying as distinct from bullying that does not include such an element.

According to the famous maxim of Kurt Lewin ( 1951 ), there is nothing more practical than a good theory. It is with this expectation that one may follow the trail of his formula, as adapted: B (bullying) =  f ( P , E ). How successful this journey can be remains to be seen. The models presented here were consistent with empirical findings in relating bullying behavior to ecological and person variables. Furthermore, the models discussed can be used to draw attention to points at which appropriate interventions may be undertaken by schools to prevent bullying from occurring or from continuing and provide justifications for various actions in addressing the problem.

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30 (1), 47–87.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50 (2), 179–211.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding and predicting social behavior. Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar  

Anderson, D. J. (2022). The nature of the beast: How emotions guide us. Basic Books.

Anscombe, E. (2000). Intention (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

APA. (2022). APA Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association.

Armitage, R. (2021). Bullying in children: Impact on child’s health. BMJ. Paediatric Open, 5–1 , 1–8.

Astor, R. A., & Benbenisthty, R. (2018). Bullying, school violence, and climate in evolving contexts: Culture, organization, and time. Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Auemaneekul, N., Powwattana, A., Kiatsiri, E., & Thananowan, N. (2020). Investigating the mechanisms of theory of planned behavior on cyberbullying among Thai adolescents. Journal of Health Research, 34 (1), 42–55.

Ball, H., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. (2008). Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (1), 104–112.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 33 , 193–209.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106 (1), 59–73.

Bowes L., Arseneault L., Maughan, B., Taylor A. Caspi A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009) School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48 (5):545–553.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (2009). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Burns, S., Maycock, B., Cross, D., & Brown, G. (2008). The power of peers: Why some students bully others to conform. Qualitative Health Research, 18 (12), 1704–1716.

Campaert, K., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2017). The efficacy of teachers’ responses to incidents of bullying and victimization: The mediational role of moral disengagement for bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 43 , 483–492.

Connell, N. M., Morris, R. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Predicting bullying: Exploring the contributions of childhood negative life experiences in predicting adolescent bullying behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60 (9), 1082–1096.

Cornu, C., Abduvahobov, P., & Laoufi, R. (2022). An Introduction to a whole-education approach to school bullying: Recommendations from UNESCO scientific committee on school violence and bullying including cyberbullying. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention . https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-021-00093-8

Cross, D. S., Runions, K. C., Britt, E. F., & Gray, C. (2018). Motivational interviewing as a positive response to high-school bullying. Psychology in the Schools, 55 (5), 464–475.

Denti, D. (2021). Looking ahead in anger: The effects of foreign migration on youth resentment in England. Journal of Regional Science , 1–26.

Dixon, R., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards and integrated model. Cambridge University Press.

Dollard, J., Miller, N. E., Doob, L. W., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression . Yale University Press.

Elgar, F. J., Craig, W., Boyce, W., Morgan, A., & Vella-Zarb, R. (2009). Income inequality and school bullying: Multilevel study of adolescents in 37 countries . Journal of Adolescent Health, 45 , 151–159.

Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory into Practice, 53 (4), 257–264.

Evans, C. B. R., & Smokowski, P. R. (2016). Theoretical explanations for bullying in school: How ecological processes propagate perpetration and victimization. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal, 33 (4), 365–375.

Farrell, A. H., & Volk, A. A. (2017). Social ecology and adolescent bullying: Filtering risky environments through antisocial personality. Children and Youth Services Review, 83 , 85–100.

Foody, M., & Samara, M. (2018). Considering mindfulness techniques in school-based antibullying programs. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 7 (1), 3–9.

Fram, S. M., & Dickman, E. M. (2012). How the school-built environment exacerbates bullying and peer harassment. Children, Youth and Environmemts, 22 (1), 227–249.

Georgiou, S. N., Stavrinides, P., & Fousiani, K. (2013). Authoritarian parenting, power distance, and bullying propensity. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 1 (3), 199–206.

Gross, J., & Vostroknutov, A. (2022). Why do people follow social norms? Science Direct, 44 , 1–6.

Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development., 10 , 512–527.

Healy, K. L., & Sanders, M. R. (2014). Randomized controlled trial of a family intervention for children bullied by peers. Behavior Therapy, 45 (6), 760–777.

Healy, K. L. (2020). Hypotheses for possible iatrogenic impacts of school bullying prevention programs. Child Development Perspectives., 14 (4), 221–228.

Hornby, G. (2015). Bullying: An ecological approach to bullying in schools. Preventing School Failure, 60 (3), 1–9.

Hymel, S., & Bonanno, R. A. (2014). Moral disengagement processes in bullying. Theory into Practice, 53 (4), 278–285.

Iannello, N. M., Camodeca, M., Gelati, C., & Papotti, N. (2021). Prejudice and ethnic bullying among children: The role of moral disengagement and student-teacher relationships. Frontiers of Psychology, 12 , 1–11.

Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2006). Examining the relationship between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 32 , 540–550.

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.

Lewin, K. (1951). Reprinted 1964. Field theory in social science –selected theoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. N.Y.: Harper & Row.

Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: The state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22 , 240–253.

Modin, B., Laftman, S. B., & Ostberg, V. ( 2017). Teacher rated school ethos and student reported bullying–A multilevel study of upper secondary schools in Stockholm, Sweden. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 , 1–13.

Musci, R. J., Bettencourt, A. F., Sisto, B. S., Maher, B., Uhl, G., Ialongo, N., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2018). Evaluating the genetic susceptibility to peer reported bullying behaviors. Psychiatry Research, 263 , 193–198.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

Pabian, S., & Vandebosch, H. (2014). Using the theory of planned behavior to understand cyberbullying: The importance of beliefs for developing interventions. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 11 (4), 463–477.

Perkins, H. W., Craig, D. W., & Perkins, J. M. (2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14 (5), 703–722.

Potard, C., Pochon, R., Henry, A., Combes, C., Kubiszewski, V., & Roy, A. (2021). Relationships between school bullying and frustration intolerance beliefs in adolescence: A gender-specific analysis. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. Advance Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-021-00402-6

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rigby, K. (1997). Attitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18 (2), 202–220.

Rigby, K. (2012a). Bullying interventions in school: Six basic approaches. Boston/Wiley (American edition).

Rigby, K. (2012b). Bullying in schools: Addressing desires, not only behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 24 (2), 339–348.

Rigby, K. (2013). Bullying in schools and its relation to parenting and family life. Family Matters, 91 , 61–68.

Rigby, K. (2021a). Addressing cases of bullying in schools: Reactive strategies. Editors: Peter K Smith and James O’Higgins. Chapter 20 In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention, 2 , 370–387. London: John Wiley and Sons.

Rigby, K. (2021). Multiperspectivity in school bullying . Routledge.

Rigby, K., & Bortolozzo, G. (2013). How schoolchildren’s acceptance of self and others relate to their attitudes to victims of bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 16 , 181–197.

Rigby, K., Haroun, D., & Ali, E. (2019). Bullying in schools in the United Arab Emirates and the personal safety of students. Child Indicators Research, 12 , 1663–1675.

Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006a). Expressed readiness of Australian school children to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educational Psychology, 26 , 425–440.

Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006b). Playground heroes: Who can stop bullying? Greater Good, 14–17.

Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42 , 747–759.

Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 , 112–120.

Salmivalli, C. (2014). Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory into Practice, 53 (4), 286–292.

Siriporn, S. (2021). Theory of planned behavior in cyberbullying: A literature review. International Journal of Research and Review, 8 (11), 234–239.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Simon and Schuster.

Smit, B., & Scherman, V. (2016). A case for relational leadership and an ethics of care for counteracting bullying at schools. South African Journal of Education, 36 (4), 1–9.

Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. Routledge.

Smith, P. K. (2017). Bullying and theory of mind: A review. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 13 (2), 90–95.

Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving towards a socio-ecological diathesis- stress model. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 344–355.

Tattum, D., & Tattum, E. (1992). Social education and personal development. David Fulton.

Thornberg, R., & Jungert, T. (2014). School bullying and the mechanism of moral disengagement. Aggressive. Behavior, 40 , 99–108.

Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., Pozzoli, T., & Gianluca, G. (2018). Victim prevalence in bullying and its association with teacher–student and student–student relationships and class moral disengagement: A class-level path analysis. Research Papers in Education, 33 (3), 320–335.

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 (1), 27–56.

UNESCO. (2019). School violence and bullying: Global status and trends, drivers and consequences. UNESCO.

VanGeel, M., Goemans, A., Toprak, F., & Vedder, P. (2017). Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the big five, dark triad and sadism. Personality and Individual Differences, 106 (1), 231–235.

Van Ryzin, M. J., & Roseth, C. J. (2019). Effects of cooperative learning on peer relations, empathy, and bullying in middle school. Aggressive Behavior, 45 (6), 643–651.

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Munniksma, A., & Dijkstra, J. K. (2010). The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences. Child Development, 81 (2), 480–486.

Veldkamp, S. A. M., Boomsma, D. I., de Zeeuw, E. L., van Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., Bartels, M., Dolan, C. V., & van Bergen, E. (2019). Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behavior Genetics, 49 , 432–443.

Volk, A. A., Camilleri, J. A., Dane, A. V., & Zopito, A. M. (2012). Is adolescent bullying an evolutionary adaptation? Aggressive Behavior, 38 , 222–238.

Wampold, B. E. (2015). The great psychotherapy debate: The evidence for what makes psychotherapy work . Routledge.

Wei, W., Lu, J. G., Galinsky, A. D., Wu, H., Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., Yuan, W., Zhang, Q., Guo, Y., Zhang, M., Gui, W., Potter, J., Wang. J., Li, B., Xiaojie, L., Han, Y. M., Lu, M., Guo, Q., Choe, Y., Lin, W., Yu, K., Bai, Q., Shang, Z., Han, Y., & Wang, L. (2017). Regional ambient temperature is associated with human personality. Nature Human Behavior, 1 (12), 890–895.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Centre d’infection Et d’immunite de Lille, Adelaide, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ken Rigby .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Rigby, K. Theoretical Perspectives and Two Explanatory Models of School Bullying. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00141-x

Download citation

Accepted : 18 September 2022

Published : 17 October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00141-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bullying in schools
• Theories of aggression
• Personality
• Social ecology
• Explanatory models
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

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

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

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

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

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

STUDY CHARGE

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

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

Historical Context

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

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

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

___________________

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

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

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

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

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

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

Definitional Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

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

Information Gathering

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank.

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

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

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

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

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

Greater Good Science Center • Magazine • In Action • In Education

Education Articles & More

What are the best ways to prevent bullying in schools, a new study identifies the most effective approaches to bullying prevention..

All 50 U.S. states require schools to have a bullying prevention policy.

But a policy, alone, is not enough. Despite the requirement, there’s been a slight uptick in all forms of bullying during the last three years. Bullying can look like experienced basketball players systematically intimidating novice players off the court, kids repeatedly stigmatizing immigrant classmates for their cultural differences, or a middle-school girl suddenly being insulted and excluded by her group of friends.

Bullying occurs everywhere, even in the highest-performing schools, and it is hurtful to everyone involved, from the targets of bullying to the witnesses—and even to bullies themselves. October is National Bullying Prevention Month, so it’s a good time to ask ourselves: What are the best practices for preventing bullying in schools? That’s a question I explored with my colleague Marc Brackett from the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, in a recent paper that reviewed dozens of studies of real-world bullying prevention efforts.

As we discovered, not all approaches to bullying prevention are equally effective. Most bullying prevention programs focus on raising awareness of the problem and administering consequences. But programs that rely on punishment and zero tolerance have not been shown to be effective in the U.S.; and they often disproportionately target students of color. Programs like peer mediation that place responsibility on the children to work out conflicts can increase bullying. (Adult victims of abuse are never asked to “work it out” with their tormentor, and children have an additional legal right to protections due to their developmental status.) Bystander intervention, even among adults, only works for some people—extroverts, empaths, and people with higher social status and moral engagement. Many approaches that educators adopt have not been evaluated through research; instead, educators tend to select programs based on what their colleagues use.

We found two research-tested approaches that show the most promise for reducing bullying (along with other forms of aggression and conflict). They are a positive school climate, and social and emotional learning.

Building a positive school climate

School climate can be difficult to define, though possible to measure . It is the “felt sense” of being in a school, which can arise from a greeting, the way a problem is resolved, or how people work together; it is a school’s “heart and soul,” its “quality and character.” Schools with a positive climate foster healthy development, while a negative school climate is associated with higher rates of student bullying, aggression, victimization, and feeling unsafe.

GGSC Online Courses for Educators

A suite of practical, self-paced courses to help build kinder, happier schools

The elements of a positive climate may vary, but may often include norms about feelings and relationships, power and how it is expressed, and media consumption. Social norm engineering is a conscious process that builds a positive culture among student peers and school adults that becomes self-reinforcing. Like a healthy immune system, a positive school climate promotes optimal health and reduces the chances of dysfunction or disease.

Leadership is key to a positive climate. Is bullying minimized as a “normal rite of childhood,” or is it recognized as the harmful peer abuse that it is? Do leaders understand that uninterrupted, severe bullying can confer lifelong negative consequences on targets of bullies, bullies, and witnesses? Are school leaders committed to promoting all children’s positive psychological health, or do they over-rely on punishing misbehavior? Can they discern between typical developmental processes that need guidance versus bullying that needs assertive intervention? Are educators empathic to their students, and do they value children’s feelings?

Next, are teachers prepared to deal with bullying? Students consistently report that teachers miss most incidents of bullying and fail to help students when asked. A majority of teachers report that they feel unprepared to deal with classroom bullying. Some teachers bully students themselves , or show a lack of empathy toward children who are bullied. Teachers report that they receive little guidance in “classroom management,” and sometimes default to the disciplinary strategies they learned in their own families growing up.

However, reforming school climate should involve all stakeholders—students and parents, as well as the administrators and teachers—so a school’s specific issues can be addressed, and the flavor of local cultures retained. School climate assessments can be completed periodically to track the impact of improvements.

Advancing social and emotional learning

Social and emotional learning (SEL) is well known, and involves teaching skills of self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, responsible decision making, and relationships management. (Full disclosure: Brackett and I are affiliated with the SEL program RULER .)

Evidence-based SEL approaches have been shown to deliver cost-effective, solid results. Numerous meta-analyses , research reviews , and individual studies of hundreds of thousands of K-12 students show that SEL improves emotional well-being, self-regulation, classroom relationships, and kind and helpful behavior among students. It reduces a range of problems like anxiety, emotional distress, and depression; reduces disruptive behaviors like conflicts, aggression, bullying, anger, and hostile attribution bias ; and it improves academic achievement, creativity, and leadership.

A study of 36 first-grade teachers showed that when teachers were more emotionally supportive of students, children were less aggressive and had greater behavioral self-control, compared to the use of behavior management, which did not improve student self-control. One meta-analysis showed that developing emotional competence was protective against becoming a victim of bullying; social competence and academic performance were protective against becoming a bully; and positive peer interactions were protective against becoming a bully-victim (one who has been bullied and bullies others). A series of longitudinal studies showed positive effects into midlife (e.g., fewer divorces, less unemployment) and even cross-generational effects of early SEL. Compared to a matched control group, the children of the adults who participated in the Perry Preschool Project had less criminal involvement and higher educational and employment achievement. A cost-benefit analysis of six SEL programs found them to be good investments, with $11 saved for every $1 spent.

Teachers also benefit from SEL. Those with emotional and social skills training have higher job satisfaction and less burnout, show more positive emotions toward their students, manage their classrooms better, and use more strategies that cultivate creativity, choice, and autonomy in their students. Teachers report that they want more SEL support to cultivate their own emotional and social skills, and to better understand their students’ feelings. But few teacher training programs focus on growing the teachers’ emotion regulation skills.

Bullying at different age levels

SEL approaches should be developmentally wise , since what is salient and possible for children changes at different ages.

For example, preschoolers are expelled from school at the highest rates of all, but the neurological hardware for their self-control is only just developing. Only then are the connections between the emotion circuitry and the more thinking regions of the prefrontal cortex beginning to be myelinated (insulated for faster connectivity), something that will take until the mid 20s to complete. An SEL program like PATHS or RULER that teaches young children language for feelings, and strategies for thinking before acting, can develop better self-regulation.

Online resources on bullying

Learn more about SEL programs .

Read your state’s legislation and policies on bullying .

Read your state’s legislation and policies on cyberbullying .

Schools can refer to this summary of legal issues on bullying .

Many states have laws that outlaw sexting, and most states outlaw revenge porn. Find out your state laws .

Discover tip sheets for preventing and responding to cyberbullying in middle and high school educators, parents, and teens.

Discover more tip sheets for parents and teens .

Sometimes, adults confuse normal developmental processes with bullying. For example, children begin to reorganize their friendships midway through elementary school, something that can naturally create hurt feelings and interpersonal conflict. It should not be misconstrued as bullying, though, which involves intentional, repeated aggression within an imbalance of power. Normal development also includes experimenting with power, and these normal dynamics should be guided safely toward developing a healthy sense of agency, rather than a hurtful exertion of power over someone else.

Finally, the onset of puberty marks the beginning of heightened sensitivity to social relationships, an especially important time to cultivate skills for kinder, gentler relationships. Unfortunately, this is the period when bullying spikes the highest. And while some strategies work well for younger children (for example, advising them to “tell a trusted adult”), this option may fail with teens, and the breakpoint seems to be around the eighth grade. Older teens require approaches that are less didactic and leverage their need for autonomy, while affirming their values and search for meaning. Physiologically, the brain changes during puberty confer a second chance for recalibrating their stress regulation system. That opportunity should be constructively seized.

Approaches should also take into account individual differences between children. Even SEL programs can stumble here, over-relying on just one or two emotion regulation strategies, like breathing or mindfulness. But children vary in their temperaments, sensitivities, strengths, and vulnerabilities. The best SEL approaches guide students toward discovering strategies that work best for them—strategies that are emotion- and context-specific, personalized, and culturally responsive. This approach requires unconventional flexibility on the part of the educators.

And, finally, approaches work best if they are not standalone pedagogies or from kits that end up in the classroom closet at the end of the year. In order to be effective, skills should become fully embedded across the curricula and the entire day, in all settings, and implemented by all adults—in other words, infiltrating the ecosystem. Only approaches used and taught as intended are successful.

Schools can’t do this alone

Families matter, too. Bullying in schools sometimes arises from harsh parenting practices or sibling bullying at home.

Even parents’ workplaces matter. Adults experience bullying in their workplaces at about the same rate as children in schools, and it’s even found among teachers and in senior living communities . In other words, bullying is not just a childhood problem; it is a pervasive human problem. And children are not buffered from the wider social world—bullying of children who belong to groups targeted in the national political discourse has spiked on playgrounds nationwide.

Ultimately, we need a substantial shift in our mindsets about the importance of children and their feelings. Children are more likely to thrive when we nurture their humanity, and offer them language and strategies and values to help them identify, express, and, thus, regulate their feelings. When parents, teachers, and administrators gain new awareness into the complex roots of bullying and adopt new strategies for addressing it, schools can lead the way. The kids are counting on us.

Courage in Education: Facing Challenges with Strength, Determination, and Hope

A new online course to help educators cultivate courage in schools and classrooms.

About the Author

Diana Divecha

Diana Divecha, Ph.D. , is a developmental psychologist, an assistant clinical professor at the Yale Child Study Center and Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, and on the advisory board of the Greater Good Science Center. Her blog is developmentalscience.com .

You May Also Enjoy

This article — and everything on this site — is funded by readers like you.

Become a subscribing member today. Help us continue to bring “the science of a meaningful life” to you and to millions around the globe.

How to Handle Bullying at School

Here’s what parents and teachers can do to stop bullying.

Getty Images

Bullying is behavior that hurts or harms someone else, and it can be physical, emotional or psychological.

As children return to their classrooms this fall, experts say parents and educators should look for signs of bullying at school, an age-old problem that often emerges in new and different forms every year.

Podcasts for Kids

Kristen Hampshire March 25, 2021

"It appears that bullying went down during the pandemic," Dorothy L. Espelage, a professor at the University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill and an expert in bullying prevention, wrote in an email. "But it will likely increase or be back to our pre-COVID rates."

Bullying, or at least reported cases, likely decreased when schools were closed by the coronavirus pandemic, taking students out of close proximity and into a virtual learning environment. But many experts say a return to school will almost certainly change that trend. Some fear that face masks and other COVID-19 protection measures could become a source of bullying.

What Is Bullying?

At its most basic level, bullying is behavior that hurts or harms another person. It can be physical, emotional or psychological. It can occur between friends or within groups, either in-person or online. Bullying can be overt and direct, with physical behavior such as fighting, hitting or name-calling, or it can be covert, with social interactions such as gossip or exclusion.

Roughly 1 in 5 children ages 12 to 18 are bullied in U.S. schools, according to data released in 2019 by the National Center for Education Statistics . Bullying is more prevalent in middle school than in high school, with almost 1 in 3 students reporting incidents in sixth grade. Overall, girls are more likely to report bullying, with almost 24% doing so, compared with about 17% of boys.

Experts say there are many effective ways to handle bullying at school, so long as parents, teachers and administrators work together to create a safe and inclusive environment and confront problems when they arise.

"Preventing bullying is first and foremost an adult responsibility," Ellen Walser deLara, author of Bullying Scars: The Impact on Adult Life and Relationships , wrote in an email.

Diagnose the Problem

To handle bullying at school, adults must first be attuned to the symptoms. A change in a child's behavior or mood is often a sign, according to Bailey Huston, coordinator of PACER's National Bullying Prevention Center. One example might be "a usually happy child who loves getting on the bus each morning suddenly demanding that their parents give them a ride to school," she wrote in an email.

Other potential indicators may include avoiding school; a decline in academic performance or grades; an inability to concentrate; unexplained headaches and stomachaches; sleeping problems; or increased anxiety, isolation or aggression, Huston says.

"Parents need to pay attention to bullying as a possible cause if their children's behavior changes from a positive place among their friends to an avoidant, sad, angry or anxious demeanor," Joel Haber, a psychologist and author who is an expert on bullying prevention, wrote in an email.

Parents can ask open-ended questions to help their children discuss a bullying situation. Start with questions that address the child's environment, Huston says. For example, "How was your bus ride today?" or, "Have you ever seen anyone being mean to someone on the bus?" Then move to questions that directly affect the child, such as, "Are you ever scared to get on the bus?" or, "Has anyone ever been mean to you on the bus?"

Take the Lead at School

Experts say that parents can and should take the lead in asserting that bullying behavior is not acceptable at school. They should communicate with other parents, share information and talk to teachers and administrators when they learn about problems.

According to experts, parents are well within their rights to ask that the school take measures to address bullying and provide a safe environment. Many schools are proactive and may already have a policy in place.

"Schools that create a culture of inclusion, train staff about bullying and follow clear protocols rewarding efforts to create a community for all faculty and students have better outcomes against bullying and greater safety," Haber says. "Schools that ignore bullying in their student body and faculty and don't take steps to protect the community allow those who bully a place to use their power to marginalize others. They create a culture where those toward the bottom of the social ladder are victimized."

Create an Intervention Plan

Experts say that parents should not teach children to fight back with aggression, nor expect them to figure out how to handle bullying at school on their own. Instead, parents should work with their child and create a plan together to address both the immediate problem and long-term solutions.

Children should know that they can walk away or avoid bullying situations, and that they can and should talk to an adult – a teacher, parent or anyone else – as soon as possible. There should be no negative connotation or consequences associated with sharing information about a bullying incident.

Make sure the plan incorporates the child's strengths and abilities, in order to help build self-confidence and resilience. The agreed-upon strategies should then be shared with others involved in the child's life, such as teachers, administrators, coaches, aftercare professionals and any other adults who interact with the child regularly.

It is important to remember that the student who is bullying others has often been bullied themselves, notes Maria Blaeuer, director of programs and outreach at the nonprofit Advocates for Justice and Education. Any intervention around bullying should therefore involve teaching new skills and strategies to both the bully and the victim.

Encourage Peer Support

Peer support can also be a crucial piece of handling bullying at school.

"Students are powerful in bullying situations, as they often know about bullying long before adults are aware of it," Huston says. "Students telling a peer to stop bullying has much more impact than adults giving that same advice."

It's important that students know they have options when responding to bullying on behalf of a peer, and that they can pick those that feel safe for them in different situations. They can directly intervene by discouraging the person bullying, defending the target or redirecting the situation away from bullying. Other options include reporting the bullying to adults or rallying support from peers to stop the bullying.

Model Proper Behavior

Parents can also help prevent bullying by modeling proper behavior in their own power dynamics at home.

"Parents who utilize and teach empathy and compassion through their own behavior, and do not abuse others who are less powerful, are the best teachers of anti-bullying behavior," Haber says.

That same idea applies in schools, where dozens – sometimes hundreds – of professionals are often working together in close quarters. How those adults interact can have an impact on how children relate to one another.

"Teachers in school have the same opportunity to teach compassion and empathy and role-model behavior," Haber says.

Learn More About Bullying and Prevention

While it is a common occurrence, experts say that bullying can have serious consequences.

"Bullying can have lifelong effects," Haber says. "The lack of safety, connectedness, and isolation that can emerge can be life-altering."

For parents, teachers, administrators and others who want to learn more about bullying and prevention, there are many resources available:

• PACER's National Bullying Prevention Center is filled with activities that can be conducted at school, materials that can be used in a classroom setting, information on National Bullying Prevention Month in October and other resources.
• The American Society for Positive Care of Children has a downloadable resource kit.
• Stopbullying.gov contains information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• The National Association of School Psychologists maintains a bullying prevention page for families and educators.
• The Children's Safety Network maintains a page with information on bullying, detailed statistics and resources such as guides, webinars, infographics and publications dedicated to prevention.

Searching for a school? Explore our K-12 directory .

Best States for Early Education

Tags: education , K-12 education , parenting , bullying , children's health , elementary school , middle school , high school

2024 Best Colleges

Search for your perfect fit with the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities.

Popular Stories

Best Colleges

College Admissions Playbook

You May Also Like

Choosing a high school: what to consider.

Cole Claybourn April 23, 2024

States With Highest Test Scores

Sarah Wood April 23, 2024

Map: Top 100 Public High Schools

Sarah Wood and Cole Claybourn April 23, 2024

Metro Areas With Top-Ranked High Schools

A.R. Cabral April 23, 2024

U.S. News Releases High School Rankings

Explore the 2024 Best STEM High Schools

Nathan Hellman April 22, 2024

See the 2024 Best Public High Schools

Joshua Welling April 22, 2024

Ways Students Can Spend Spring Break

Anayat Durrani March 6, 2024

Attending an Online High School

Cole Claybourn Feb. 20, 2024

How to Perform Well on SAT, ACT Test Day

Cole Claybourn Feb. 13, 2024

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:

9 facts about bullying in the U.S.

Many U.S. children have experienced bullying, whether online or in person. This has prompted discussions about schools’ responsibility to curb student harassment , and some parents have turned to home-schooling or other measures to prevent bullying .

Here is a snapshot of what we know about U.S. kids’ experiences with bullying, taken from Pew Research Center surveys and federal data sources.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand U.S. children’s experiences with bullying, both online and in person. Findings are based on surveys conducted by the Center, as well as data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Additional information about each survey and its methodology can be found in the links in the text of this analysis.

Bullying is among parents’ top concerns for their children, according to a fall 2022 Center survey of parents with children under 18 . About a third (35%) of U.S. parents with children younger than 18 say they are extremely or very worried that their children might be bullied at some point. Another 39% are somewhat worried about this.

Of the eight concerns asked about in the survey, only one ranked higher for parents than bullying: Four-in-ten parents are extremely or very worried about their children struggling with anxiety or depression.

About half of U.S. teens (53%) say online harassment and online bullying are a major problem for people their age, according to a spring 2022 Center survey of teens ages 13 to 17 . Another 40% say it is a minor problem, and just 6% say it is not a problem.

Black and Hispanic teens, those from lower-income households and teen girls are more likely than those in other groups to view online harassment as a major problem.

Nearly half of U.S. teens have ever been cyberbullied, according the 2022 Center survey of teens . The survey asked teens whether they had ever experienced six types of cyberbullying. Overall, 46% say they have ever encountered at least one of these behaviors, while 28% have experienced multiple types.

The most common type of online bullying for teens in this age group is being called an offensive name (32% have experienced this). Roughly one-in-five teens have had false rumors spread about them online (22%) or were sent explicit images they didn’t ask for (17%).

Teens also report they have experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with (15%); being physically threatened (10%); or having explicit images of them shared without their consent (7%).

Older teen girls are especially likely to have experienced bullying online, the spring 2022 survey of teens shows. Some 54% of girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least one cyberbullying behavior asked about in the survey, compared with 44% of boys in the same age group and 41% of younger teens. In particular, older teen girls are more likely than the other groups to say they have been the target of false rumors and constant monitoring by someone other than a parent.

They are also more likely to think they have been harassed online because of their physical appearance: 21% of girls ages 15 to 17 say this, compared with about one-in-ten younger teen girls and teen boys.

White, Black and Hispanic teens have all encountered online bullying at some point, but some of their experiences differ, the spring 2022 teens survey found. For instance, 21% of Black teens say they’ve been targeted online because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 11% of Hispanic teens and 4% of White teens.

Hispanic teens are the most likely to say they’ve been constantly asked where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with by someone other than a parent. And White teens are more likely than Black teens to say they’ve been targeted by false rumors.

The sample size for Asian American teens was not large enough to analyze separately.

During the 2019-2020 school year, around two-in-ten U.S. middle and high school students said they were bullied at school . That year, 22% of students ages 12 to 18 said this, with the largest shares saying the bullying occurred for one day only (32%) or for between three and 10 days (29%), according to the most recent available data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).

Certain groups of students were more likely to experience bullying at school. They include girls, middle schoolers (those in sixth, seventh or eighth grade), and students in rural areas.  

The most common types of at-school bullying for all students ages 12 to 18 were being made the subject of rumors (15%) and being made fun of, called names or insulted (14%).

The classroom was the most common location of bullying that occurred at school in 2019-2020, the BJS and NCES data shows. This was the case for 47% of students ages 12 to 18 who said they were bullied during that school year. Other frequently reported locations included hallways or stairwells (39%), the cafeteria (26%) and outside on school grounds (20%).

Fewer than half (46%) of middle and high schoolers who were bullied at school in 2019-2020 said they notified a teacher or another adult about it, according to the BJS and NCES data. Younger students were more likely to tell an adult at school. Around half or more of sixth, seventh and eighth graders said they did so, compared with 28% of 12th graders.

Students who reported more frequent bullying were also more likely to notify an adult at school. For instance, 60% of those who experienced bullying on more than 10 days during the school year told an adult, compared with 35% of those who experienced it on one day.

In 2021, high schoolers who are gay, lesbian or bisexual were about twice as likely as their heterosexual counterparts to say they’d been bullied, both at school and online, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . In the 12 months before the survey, 22% of high school students who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual – and 21% of those who identify as questioning or some other way – said they were bullied on school property. That compares with 10% of heterosexual students. The data does not include findings for transgender students.

The trend is similar when it comes to electronic bullying through text or social media: 27% of high school students who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual say they experienced this in the 12 months before the survey, as did 23% of those who identify as questioning or some other way. That compares with 11% of those who identify as heterosexual.

• Online Harassment & Bullying

Katherine Schaeffer is a research analyst at Pew Research Center

About 1 in 4 U.S. teachers say their school went into a gun-related lockdown in the last school year

About half of americans say public k-12 education is going in the wrong direction, what public k-12 teachers want americans to know about teaching, what’s it like to be a teacher in america today, race and lgbtq issues in k-12 schools, 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

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• 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 .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Avoiding the "Last Straw" in Cases of Bullying

Preventing adolescent victims who are bullied from becoming perpetrators..

Posted April 22, 2024 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

• How to Handle Bullying
• Find counselling to support kids or teens
• Teens who become bullies were often bullied themselves.
• However, not all victims of bullies become perpetrators.
• A new study suggests that the way a bullied teen copes can either increase or decrease their risk of violence.
• Early intervention can help the bullied victim get the help they need before they become violent.

Many teenagers are bullied at some point. In response, some seek revenge and become bullies themselves. But why some and not others? A new study by researchers in China suggests the victim's internal world differentiates those who seek revenge from those who don't. Their research indicates that two thought patterns, in particular, have a massive impact on how adolescents interpret and respond to abusive peers.

One of these thought patterns is a hostile attribution bias , i.e., the tendency to assume that when an interpersonal situation is ambiguous, the default interpretation is that the other person's intentions are hostile. For example, if a peer doesn't respond to a greeting in the hallway, a teen with hostile attribution bias might automatically assume the peer is deliberately ignoring them. But what if the nonresponsive peer didn't hear them or was distracted? A teen who has developed a hostile attribution bias is hypervigilant; they see threats everywhere. And they base their reactions on these assumptions without checking them out.

In fact, how a victim interprets being bullied may wield as much influence as how often the mistreatment occurs. Sure, being frequently bullied ups the odds for a desire for revenge, but a hostile attribution bias explains part of this link; in the minds of these victims, bystanders are viewed as collaborators and innocuous encounters are interpreted as persecution.

The second cognitive style is a specific type of rumination . We all mentally replay upsetting events. But there's a difference between revisiting a distressing event to understand it better or deal with it more effectively and mentally rehashing the specific details and reliving their emotions. It's the latter type—this angry rumination—that fuels the desire for retaliation.

If we drill down a little deeper, we can examine who is more likely to develop these potentially dangerous coping styles. What leads a victim to violence is due to a complex interplay of individual and environmental factors, but we have identified some risk factors for these thought patterns:

• Teens with pre-existing aggressive tendencies, impulsivity, or conduct problems
• Bullied teens who lack social support and are socially awkward
• Teens who have witnessed or experienced violence at home
• The absence of protective factors, such as abstract thinking abilities, empathy, and self-regulation skills
• School climate and whether adults effectively intervene

Connecting the Dots

So, how do we use these research findings to make schools safer? Let's pretend that a school counselor is concerned that a bullied teen might become violent to get revenge. Perhaps he has made concerning remarks to a peer, or a teacher has noticed an increasingly belligerent attitude in class. They call in a threat assessment professional to conduct an interview. Typical questions would likely focus on general violence risk—specific revenge plans, access and familiarity with weapons, mental health symptoms, criminal or violence history, previous communication about and strategies used to stop bullying and their effectiveness, etc. (Of course, others would be interviewed as well.)

These findings suggest that exploring this teen's inner world will also yield valuable information. It may be helpful not only to ask how often they think about their mistreatment (how many times a day or week) but what they think about it. When they think about it, what do they focus on? How long do they think about it (a few minutes, an hour, several hours, more)? Do they pop up even when you're trying to focus on something else? If they try, can they turn off those thoughts? Do they feel more agitated and on edge after thinking about it, or does it calm them down? Do they ever fantasize about getting revenge? If so, what do they imagine doing? If not, what would change this answer from a no to a yes?

Anyone who has evaluated a teenager for any aggressive behavior problem knows it's a dynamic process; violence risk can quickly change. This is why it's so important to divert an angry but not presently dangerous adolescent toward therapeutic resources that can build rapport, express empathy, and guide them toward healthier, nonviolent coping mechanisms. They can also monitor behavior as well as environmental triggers that are most likely to tempt a bullied teen to become violent, such as:

• A new, severe bullying incident that feels like the "last straw"
• Seeing their bullies receive acclaim or reward, which feels profoundly unjust
• Feeling publicly humiliated by their bullies
• Perceiving that adults have failed to protect them or take the bullying seriously
• Reaching a point of hopelessness where they believe violence is the only solution

The Bottom Line

Becoming a bully is not an inevitable outcome of being bullied. Most victimized teens can work through their understandable anger without resorting to violence themselves. They can avoid or break free from a victim-to-bully cycle.

This starts with a careful evaluation of the teen's unique risk and protective factors to gauge their potential for violence, as well as developing an appropriate intervention plan in collaboration with the school counselor, parents, and other support providers. Intervening early ups the odds that therapeutic options are still available, where the therapist takes the student's distress seriously and provides the comprehensive, compassionate care they need to recover and thrive.

Joni E. Johnston , Psy.D , is a clinical/forensic psychologist, private investigator, author, and host of the YouTube channel and podcast "Unmasking a Murderer."

• 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
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

School Board Cancels Gay Actor’s Anti-Bullying Talk Over His ‘Lifestyle’

Maulik Pancholy was scheduled to give a talk on anti-bullying at a Pennsylvania school next month. School board members scrapped it, citing concerns about his activism and “lifestyle.”

By Orlando Mayorquín

A Pennsylvania school board canceled an anti-bullying speech by the actor Maulik Pancholy, who is gay, after board members raised concerns about his “lifestyle,” prompting outrage from the surrounding community.

The Cumberland Valley School District school board voted unanimously to pass a motion to cancel Mr. Pancholy’s speaking event next month at Mountain View Middle School in Mechanicsburg, a community of about 9,000 people roughly 100 miles west of Philadelphia.

The board drew criticism after the members voiced what some called homophobic concerns about Mr. Pancholy’s activism and his lifestyle.

Mr. Pancholy played the obsequious assistant to Alec Baldwin’s character on the TV show “30 Rock” and voiced Baljeet in the cartoon “Phineas and Ferb.” He is also an author who has written children’s books, including one called “The Best at It,” about a gay Indian American boy named Rahul and his experience dealing with bullying in a small Midwest town.

“He labels himself as an activist who is proud of his lifestyle and I don’t think that should be imposed on our students,” said Bud Shaffner, a board member at the Monday evening meeting.

Kelly Potteiger, a newly elected board member who campaigned for her seat as a member of the local chapter of the right-wing activist group Moms for Liberty , voiced concerns that Mr. Pancholy would discuss his children’s books, which deal with the bullying faced by its L.G.B.T.Q. characters, or his own experience with “anti-bullying and empathy and inclusion.”

“Again, it’s not discriminating against his lifestyle, that’s his choice, but it’s him speaking about it,” Ms. Potteiger said. “He did say that that’s not the topic, but that’s what his books are about.”

In a memo sent on Thursday to faculty, staff and administrators, the leadership of the Cumberland Valley School District said that it was disappointed in the board’s move.

“While the issue of ‘political activism’ was cited, statements made publicly by individual board members identified Mr. Pancholy’s sexual identity as a factor, an identity shared by many of members of our school community,” the memo said.

“We believe that Mr. Pancholy’s assembly should have been allowed to happen and that all of our staff and students should be proud to be part of a community that values who they are,” it added.

Every year, the middle school brings young adult authors to visit with students, according to the district. It noted that the motion to cancel the assembly, which was to have taken place on May 22, had not been on the agenda and was introduced by a board member during the meeting.

In a statement issued on Thursday evening, Mr. Pancholy said: “When I visit schools, my ‘activism’ is to let all young people know that they’re seen. To let them know that they matter.”

He added: “I wonder why a school board is so afraid of that?”

The cancellation prompted a petition to reinstate the event that stated that the decision was made “solely because he is openly gay.”

Trisha Comstock, who has two sons enrolled in the school district, started the online petition. By late Wednesday evening, the petition had gotten more than 1,000 signatures.

In a phone interview, Mr. Shaffner said his comment was misconstrued and that his remark about Mr. Pancholy’s lifestyle had to do with his activism.

“The fact that he is a self-proclaimed political activist is what we object to,” Mr. Shaffner said.

On his website, Mr. Pancholy calls himself an “activist” who works on social justice causes. But Mr. Shaffner and other board members cast his work as political and said they worried his speech could violate a district policy barring political events.

“There is no political agenda,” Ms. Comstock said in a phone interview. “He is not trying to pass policies or change minds or anything like that.”

“They cloaked it as ‘We want to keep politics out of school’ when they clearly knew it had nothing to do with politics,” she added.

Ms. Comstock said that if the policy were applied more broadly, other groups, such as “Mothers Against Drunk Driving,” would be considered activists.

“Would we ban them from coming and talking to our members?” she said.

Ms. Comstock, whose children once attended the school, said the board’s decision was not representative of the community.

“And that’s why our community is outraged right now,” she said. “This isn’t who we are.”

Orlando Mayorquín is a breaking news reporter, based in New York, and a member of the 2023-24 Times Fellowship class , a program for journalists early in their careers. More about Orlando Mayorquín

25 years later, the trauma of the Columbine High School shooting is still with us

Dave Cullen had just sat down to lunch – a Budget Gourmet frozen meal of beef stroganoff – when the media first reported shots fired at a school in Littleton, Colorado, on a warm April day a quarter of a century ago.

Jaclyn Schildkraut was home sick during her freshman year of college watching soap operas – "Days of Our Lives," she thinks – when the news broke in with aerial videos of SWAT teams and terrified students running out of Columbine High School with their hands over their heads.

Robert Thompson stayed awake watching the late-night news program " Nightline ," the interviews with survivors and their parents, the haunting video of then-17-year-old Patrick Ireland falling, bloodied, out the window of the school library into the arms of first responders.

The massacre at Columbine on April 20, 1999, during which 12 students and one teacher were killed, wasn’t the United States' first mass shooting at a school, nor would it be the last. But media experts told USA TODAY it quickly became one of the most infamous thanks in part to the advent of the 24-hour news cycle and the internet. In what felt like real time, the shooting sent shock waves through the Colorado community and the nation, shattering the belief that children were safe at school.

“It was seared into us,” said Cullen, journalist and author of "Columbine." “I wasn't calling it the start of the mass-shooter era then, but we knew we were into something new and horrible.”

The trauma of Columbine still haunts the country 25 years later, including students who weren’t alive to witness it. The massacre became a blueprint for dozens of copycats, led to major changes in school safety, and sparked an enduring legacy of activism as survivors push for better gun control and offer their support to the next generation of Americans affected by gun violence.

“There's no healing," Cullen said. "It's an open wound.”

Mass shooting news can cause stress

At the time, the massacre at Columbine wasn't the nation's deadliest school shooting , said Thompson, a trustee professor of television and popular culture at Syracuse University. But the shooting came after the formation of CNN, Fox and MSNBC, which made it the first to get 24/7 television news coverage, which Thompson called “powerful and remarkably upsetting.”

Columbine was more closely watched than any other news story that year or that decade, except for the 1992 verdict in the Rodney King beating and the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800, according to a 1999 survey from the Pew Research Center .

Shocking images were broadcast and television anchors interviewed students calling from inside the building, fueling the feeling that the disaster was still unfolding, Cullen wrote in "Columbine." Though the shooting ended just after noon, it would be several hours before police, the press and the public learned the perpetrators were dead, said Cullen, who covered the massacre for Salon . He said that may have contributed to the tragedy's staying power in the nation’s collective memory.

“We lived through it live,” he said. 

Another factor was the media's focus on the shooters, who intentionally left behind a collection of evidence that later would become celebrated on "some of the darkest corners of the internet," according to James Densley, professor of criminal justice at Metropolitan State University in Minnesota.

“It was a mass shooting designed to go viral before we knew what going viral even meant,” Densely said.

Research on mass tragedies in the decades since has found the more time people spend watching this kind of news, the more likely they are to report high levels of acute stress, according to E. Alison Holman, a professor in the school of nursing and department of psychological science at the University of California, Irvine. This is particularly true when the images are graphic, Holman said.

In a study on the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing , Holman found consuming six or more hours a day of media coverage about the attack was associated with more acute stress symptoms than actually being at the site of the bombing. She said symptoms can include intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, shallow breathing and increased heart rate. The effects can last for years, Holman said.

Columbine anniversary can be difficult for survivors

It’s trauma that Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed at Columbine , believes people still don’t understand. Mauser said the anniversary of the shooting can be a particularly tough time. He said he helped plan a vigil for the victims Friday evening on the steps of Colorado's Capitol, but for survivors its a day "you want to get past quickly."

“It goes beyond just the ones who were killed or injured,” Mauser said. “The trauma can be quite crippling for some people.”

In the years since the shooting, Mauser has fought for stricter gun legislation as a member of Colorado Ceasefire. When speaking publicly, he wears the shoes his son was wearing the day of the massacre.

After Columbine, many survivors of mass shootings have followed in Mauser’s footsteps, including survivors of the 2018 attack on Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Though activism can lead to burnout, research on climate change anxiety published in Current Psychology and sexual assault trauma published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology suggests engaging in activism can benefit participants' mental health.

In 1999, sustained mental health services were "not a thing,” said Missy Mendo, who was a 14-year-old freshman at Columbine at the time. The county provided six weeks of free mental health care, which Mendo said she used, but she did not return to therapy until years later, after she became a mother. 

Mendo is director of community outreach for The Rebels Project , an organization formed by a group of Columbine survivors after the 2012 mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado . The organization offers peer support to survivors of mass casualty events.

Though it's not a substitute for traditional counseling, Schildkraut, author of "Columbine, 20 Years Later and Beyond: Lessons from Tragedy," said her research has found connecting with a "survivor network" can be a crucial part of recovery.

Each year around this time, Mendo tries to plan something to take her mind off the memories. But she knows she can’t escape the calendar, and her "brain has the potential to turn to mashed potato,” she said with a laugh.

Copycat school shootings after Columbine

Columbine also spawned something more insidious: copycats. A study of 46 active shooter incidents at K-12 schools found nearly half of the shooters were influenced by Columbine , including the attackers in Parkland and Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut , according to Densley, the Metropolitan State University professor who was a co-author for the study. A Mother Jones investigation in 2019 documented the "Columbine effect" in 74 plots and attacks spanning 30 states.

“These are events where the search histories of the shooters were that they were searching for Columbine, that they were engaged in chat rooms online where they were discussing Columbine or learning about the shooters,” said Densley, co-founder of the Violence Prevention Project. “There's examples as well of shooters who have dressed in black trenchcoats because that is part of the performance of violence that Columbine created.”

Though mass shootings are rare, 75% of people ages 15 to 21 said they are significant sources of stress, according to a 2018 survey by The Harris Poll for the American Psychological Association.

Columbine itself continues to be a target, too, said John McDonald, former executive director of school safety for Jefferson County Schools in Colorado. McDonald said security at Columbine costs more than twice that of any other high school in the district.

“Columbine was unique because when I started we still had tour buses showing up trying to drop people off to take tours of the building, and it was insane,” he said. “But we also had threats because of a fascination. A fascination and fixation on the tragedy and the killers.”

McDonald said that in his 14 years on the job, the threats never waned, and ultimately they reached a crescendo around the 20th anniversary of the massacre. In April 2019, a Florida teenager authorities described as “infatuated” with the shooting flew to Colorado and bought a shotgun in Littleton, prompting school shutdowns. The teenager was later found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

"It was an incredibly scary time," McDonald said.

Adam Lankford, a University of Alabama criminology professor who has researched mass shooters, said the media attention on the perpetrators at Columbine may have contributed to this “contagion effect." Movements like No Notoriety, a campaign created by parents of Aurora theater shooting victim Alex Teves, now urge the media not to publish mass killers' names and photos.

But Lankford warned that media attention is not the only factor driving copycats .

“It doesn't mean there's a simple effect where it's like you learn about Columbine and that makes you want to kill people,” Lankford said. “It's more complicated than that. These people have other problems in their lives, other issues in terms of their psychological health.”

Shooter drills can cause anxiety

Sometimes, McDonald said, he feels "incredibly hopeful" about the progress in school safety since Columbine. Other times he's frustrated to see schools failing to take simple precautions like locking doors . He doesn’t want to be having these same conversations 25 years from now.

“We'd better be willing to get great, because those school shooters are studying. They're studying the past. They're studying the tactics. They're studying strategies. They're studying the training,” McDonald said. “They're preparing for us − we'd better be prepared for them.”

Protecting schools and being vigilant is vital, but it takes a toll, he said. More than a year ago, McDonald decided he needed a change and left Colorado.

“What I can tell you is that after all the years I did that work, I was flat worn out,” said McDonald, now chief operating officer of Missouri’s Center for Education Safety and the Council for School Safety Leadership. “I felt like this is a 24-hour-a-day way to live. And it was exhausting, it was emotional, it was physically taxing.”

School security, which has become a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry, can be taxing for others, too. Research by the Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund and the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Social Dynamics and Wellbeing Lab suggests an association between active shooter drills and increases in depression , stress and anxiety among students, parents and teachers.

Cullen, the author, said that like the changes in airport security after 9/11 , new security measures at schools after Columbine can be for some a reminder of the tragedy .

"America changed overnight in our fears and our behavior because of this," Cullen said. "Not only has no other shooting done that, but very few events, period."

Contributing: Reuters

The Columbine-Killers Fan Club

A quarter century on, the school shooters’ mythology has propagated a sprawling subculture that idolizes murder and mayhem.

M ass shootings didn’t start at Columbine High, but the mass-shooter era did. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold’s audacious plan and misread motives multiplied the stakes and inspired wave after wave of emulation. How could we know we were witnessing an origin story?

The legend of Columbine is fiction. There are two versions of the attack: what actually happened on April 20, 1999, and the story we all accepted back then. The mythical version explained it all so cleanly. A pair of outcast loners dubbed the “Trench Coat Mafia” targeted the jocks to avenge years of bullying. Dwayne Fuselier, the supervisory special agent who led the FBI’s Columbine investigation, is fond of quoting H. L. Mencken in response to the mythmaking: “There is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.”

The legend hinges on bullying, but the killers never mentioned it in the huge trove of journals, online posts, and videos they left to explain themselves. The myth was so insidious because it cast the ruthless killers as heroes of misfits everywhere. Fuselier warned how appealing that myth would sound to anyone who felt ostracized. Within a few years, the fledgling fandom would find one another on social media, where they have operated ever since.

Around the world, Eric and Dylan are idolized as champions of “the nobodies.” Eric hated the nobodies. He mocked them mercilessly on his website and in his journal. He wasn’t a loner or an outcast, and neither was Dylan. Eric and Dylan made clear in their writings that they were planning the attack for their own selfish motives—certainly not to help the kids they ridiculed at the bottom of the social food chain.

Read: The Columbine blueprint

They were not in the Trench Coat Mafia. They were not Nazis or white supremacists, and they did not plan the attack for Hitler’s birthday. They did not target jocks, Christians, or Black people. They targeted no one specifically. They shot randomly and designed their bombs to kill indiscriminately. That’s where “they” ends: Their polar-opposite personalities drove opposite motives. Psychopaths are devoid of empathy; Eric was a sadistic psychopath who killed for his own aggrandizement and enjoyment. Dylan was suicidally depressed and self-loathing. Eric lured him into punishing the world for the pain it inflicted on him, instead of punishing himself. Columbine was a suicide plan, but on “Judgment Day,” as they called it, Dylan would show the world the “somebody” we’d never seen.

T he Columbine killers have fans. Eric and Dylan’s adoring online following spreads across nearly every continent, and it’s growing across multiple platforms. The Russian government, which has been plagued by an explosion of both Columbine fandom and mass shootings, estimates that more than 70,000 members exist worldwide. They call themselves the TCC, for “True Crime Community,” and I’ve spent much of the past 15 years inside their online world. My book Columbine made me enemy No. 1 for portraying Eric and Dylan as ruthless murderers.

In 2016, a young fan tweeted: “hey @DaveCullen block me or else i shoot my school.” She’d been ranting for hours, posting pictures of school shooters, and tweets such as: “It’s also something a lot of people need, To die....I wish i was dead...I LIKE VIOLENCE...I want to be killed in front of an audience. … I think someone failed to abort me (:”

These teens are ensnared in an American tragedy that just keeps growing worse.

I’ve tried to leave this story so many times, but this diagram haunts me, ruthlessly expanding like an unstoppable spider web, devouring all the lives and futures in its path. It demands that we address the cause—25 years too late. That web is made up of 54 mass shootings that have killed nearly 300 people and wounded more than 500. And every gunman left evidence that they were inspired or influenced by the murderers at Columbine. The Columbine effect.

Eric and Dylan’s bombs failed. Yet the legend made them heroic to their progeny and gave birth to their fandom. By the tenth anniversary, a small band of “Columbiners” had formed online. They gravitated to the TCC, to Ted Bundy, to the younger Tsarnaev brother, ‎to Dylann Roof, and to others—but Eric and Dylan are the megastars. The groupies multiply, as fresh crops of teens join their ranks each season.

Most gunmen die in the act, so the 54 attacks itemized in the diagram are just the ones that we know of, and that were carried out. A 2015 Mother Jones investigation of Columbine copycats found more than two thwarted attacks for each one that succeeded. It identified 14 plotters targeting Columbine’s anniversary and 13 striving to top its body count. Surviving mass shooters have admitted that they were competing with one another.

From the Marsh 2024 issue: To stop a shooter

A ll roads lead back to Columbine. The Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, wrote in a school assignment that he wanted to “repeat Columbine” and that he idolized its “martyrs.” The Northern Illinois University killer marked a third generation, explicitly inspired by both Virginia Tech and Columbine. Sandy Hook was the fourth generation; Adam Lanza had studied all three. Six more school shooters later referenced Sandy Hook and Columbine. Five generations of fallout, all reenacting the original legend.

Most early Columbiners were just curious teenagers interested in the criminal mind or in analyzing Columbine. Many still are, and their analyses are often useful. Many are angry about being tarred with the group’s reputation, but they have been outnumbered by new arrivals unabashedly calling themselves fans. Many use the killers’ faces as avatars, extol their virtues, and compose love poems, fan fiction, and gory memes about them. Sue Klebold said she was shocked by the volume of letters she received calling Dylan “heroic” and by the number of girls saying, “I wish I could have his baby.”

How little these groupies know about the murderers they obsess over is ironic. They keep repeating the misreporting that was debunked decades ago, convinced it’s true because it has metastasized into TCC dogma. The TCC twists the story to recast the murderers as victims; and the dead, wounded, and traumatized as villains. The groupies didn’t start these myths; we in the media bear that shame. But the groupies are now the carriers, spreading the legend of Dylan and Eric to remote reaches of the globe.

Seventy thousand is a tiny fraction of the adolescent population, but a magnet for a dangerous cohort of marginalized, disaffected, and hopeless teens—a major pool of aspiring shooters. Most TCC members outright say that they condone the Columbine murders, often in their profiles. They have turned Eric and Dylan into folk heroes, and they celebrate them as avenging angels. Adam Lanza obsessed over the Columbine killers and spent years immersed in these groups online. Then he murdered 20 little kids and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

Here’s the twist: Most of the TCC members I’ve engaged with describe themselves as awkward outcasts desperate to fit in. The TCC embraces them. The TCC feels cool—Eric and Dylan are super cool—and so they finally feel cool. I find it heartbreaking to hear them describe the pain they endure at school and the affinity they feel for “Dylan” and “Eric,” the fictional characters they’ve constructed. These kids are shocked when I tell them that other members of the TCC have told me the same—that they are putting on the same show, sure that all the others really mean it. Did Adam Lanza believe the posers? We’ll never know, but we can be certain that as you read this, a distraught, lonely kid somewhere is contemplating an attack—and the one community they trust is screaming, Do it!

Elaine Godfrey: The club that no one wants to join

Lots of kids fantasize about killing. Two days after Columbine, Salon ran “ Misfits Who Don’t Kill ,” in which three people came clean about their youthful fantasies of enacting mass murder. The phenomenon was widely reported that week. But none of those people did anything, because they knew how horribly wrong acting out the fantasy would be. Inside the TCC bubble, the constant message is that if your classmates are tormenting you, killing them is not just moral —it’s heroic and noble.

T he TCC has a tell: Actual shootings unnerve them. Their posts grow quiet, respectful, and even mournful after some troubled young person heeds their call. I can gauge the change instantly, because the incessant harassment I get from them stops cold—for a week or two. Parkland was different: Six months went by before the taunts began trickling back in, and I haven’t gotten a death threat in the six years since. Why? I have no way to be certain about this, but my educated guess is that David Hogg, X González, and the rest of the March for Our Lives kids were suddenly cooler than the young shooters. And so much more powerful.

Eric and Dylan weren’t powerful—their plan failed. They’d planned Columbine as a bombing , the primary terrorist tactic. They thought they were launching a three-act drama: The cafeteria bombs would kill nearly 600 people instantly; what they called the “fun” part would be shooting up hundreds of survivors; and the massive car bombs set in the parking lot outside were to be the coup de grâce. Those timers were set to explode 45 minutes after the initial blast, wiping out countless more survivors and first responders, live on national TV. The Columbine killers’ performance was staged as the most apocalyptic made-for-TV horror film in American history. Eric complained in his journal that his “audience” would fail to understand. He got that right. He got everything else wrong.

Every element fizzled. All of the big bombs failed. Eric and Dylan went down to the cafeteria in a last desperate move to ignite the bombs with gunfire and a Molotov cocktail. Failed. Experts on psychopaths say they get bored after their initial kills, and Eric had likely lost interest. His gun’s recoil had broken his nose, so he spent that time in acute pain. The cops refused to kill them in the blaze of glory that they’d described as their final curtain. The smell of all the blood and already decomposing bodies was overpowering. Out of options, each shot himself in the head.

A more obscene and pathetic way to die is hard to imagine. Yet their fans have never confronted that ugly reality, because the opposite story took hold, making Eric and Dylan masterminds of the “worst school shooting in American history.”

The Columbine effect has gone global. It has inspired mass shootings in Finland, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ukraine, and Russia—as well as knife and axe attacks in places as remote as Siberia. In 2022, Russia designated the online “Columbine movement” a terrorist group. To comply with the ruling, my publisher required me to disavow the group in the Russian translation of Columbine . Mass murder inspired by those inept perpetrators is America’s most revolting cultural export.

I know when the TCC colonizes a new region, because I start getting a barrage of taunts in a different language. It’s a social contagion. Researchers have described school shootings as the American equivalent of suicide bombings—an ideology joined with a tactic. The phenomenon is escalating and self-perpetuating.

The Columbine groupies have no idea that they’re exporting a fraud. The media set this whole thing in motion 25 years ago. To untell a legend is a formidable task. It will be possible only when the media finally begin to convey how pathetic and gruesome the killers’ final moments were. The fans need to hear the ugly truth. Eric and Dylan viciously murdered innocent kids for their own selfish and petty agendas, and they died miserable failures.

This essay is adapted by the author from the new preface to a 25th-anniversary edition of Columbine .

5 customer-loved finds for spring, including a fashion hack — starting at $7

• TODAY Plaza
• Share this —

• Watch Full Episodes
• Read With Jenna
• Inspirational
• Relationships
• TODAY Table
• Newsletters
• Start TODAY
• Shop TODAY Awards
• Citi Concert Series
• Listen All Day

Follow today

More Brands

• On The Show

Pennsylvania school board cancels gay ‘30 Rock’ actor’s anti-bullying talk, citing his ‘lifestyle’

Openly gay actor Maulik Pancholy was disinvited from speaking at a middle school anti-bullying assembly after concerns were raised about his activism and what two school board members called his “lifestyle.”

Now Pancholy and school district employees are speaking out against the decision, along with parents and students.

Pancholy’s scheduled appearance at Mountain View Middle School in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, was unanimously cancelled by the district's school board in a public meeting on April 15. 

“If you research this individual, he labels himself as an activist, he is proud of his lifestyle and I don’t think that should be imposed upon our students at any age,” board member Bud Shaffner said at the meeting. 

Pancholy responded on his Instagram on April 18, saying in part:

“When I visit schools, my 'activism’ is to let all young people know that they’re seen. To let them know that they matter. When I talk about the characters in my books feeling 'different,' I’m always surprised by how many young people raise their hands — regardless of their identities and backgrounds — wanting to share about the ways in which they, too, feel different. 

“That’s the power of books. They build empathy. I wonder why a school board is so afraid of that?”

Also on April 18, the Cumberland Valley School District's leaders signed a letter expressing their “disappointment” at the school board's vote. The school district leaders are employees, and separate from the elected members of school board.

“While the issue of ‘political activism’ was cited, statements made publicly by individual board members identified Mr. Pancholy's sexual identity as a factor, an identity shared by many members of our school community,” said the letter, signed by Superintendent Mark Blanchard and nine other high-ranking members of the school district administration. “In doing so, Mr. Pancholy's personhood was reduced to a single aspect, and his ability to communicate a message of anti-bullying and hate was discredited.”

Trisha Comstock, a former parent at the school, started a Change.org petition t o reinstate Pancholy's anti-bullying assembly.

“What happened is homophobic. Anyone can go and watch the meeting ,” Comstock tells TODAY.com. “This board is close to causing some real harm.”

Why was Maulik Pancholy disinvited?

Board member Kelly Potteiger raised concerns that Pancholy, 50, would discuss his children’s book “The Best at It,” which is about a gay Indian American boy.

“It’s not discriminating against his lifestyle — that’s his choice,” Potteiger said in the meeting. “But it’s him speaking about it.”

Pancholy played the character Jonathan, Alex Baldwin's devoted assistant, in the sitcom “30 Rock," and also voiced the character Baljeet in “Phineas and Ferb."

Pancholy’s presentation on anti-bullying at Mountain View Middle School was canceled by an 8-0 vote. TODAY.com has reached out to Pancholy for comment.

In his Instagram post, Pancholy said, “It’s been incredibly moving to see the outpouring of solidarity, love, and support from the community at Mountain View Middle School ... I hope that every single student at MVMS is receiving that message of support and love. That you know that regardless of who you are, you belong.”

Brooke Ryerson, an LGBTQ high school sophomore, attended Mountain View Middle School. Ryerson and her mom plan to express their disappointment at the next board meeting on May 6. 

“It was going to be an assembly about empathy and anti-bullying,” Ryerson, 16, tells TODAY.com. “But that doesn’t matter to the board. They want to silence us in any way they can.”

The “us” that Ryerson is referring to is the gay community. 

“They’re sending that message that they don’t want our identities in the school,” Ryerson says. “I’m lucky that I have such accepting friends and family, but it’s gotta be devastating for the kids who don’t and now feel even more like they’re not wanted somewhere.”

How the school board decided

According to Pancholy’s website, the award-winning author delivers keynotes on the topic of “diversity and inclusion.” Pancholy is a self-described activist and served on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

Shaffner tells TODAY.com in a phone interview that he had concerns that Pancholy would “go off script” and talk about politics. 

“Politically motivated discussions belong at home and not in the classroom,” Shaffner says. “A number of board members went to his website and what stuck out to all of us is that he’s a political activist.” 

Cumberland Valley School District spokesperson Tracy Panzer tells TODAY.com that the school principal "works together with staff members to identify award-winning young adult authors to visit with students."

Panzer says that Pancholy’s visit was not on the board’s original agenda.

“However ... one board member motioned to rescind the invitation to this year’s scheduled visit by author Maulik Pancholy,” Panzer says. “Ultimately, the board voted not to allow the visit.”

'This ... could have saved a life.'

Tony Conte, a former Mountain View Middle School student, shared an open letter to Shaffner on Facebook . In the post, Conte reflected on his experience as a closeted gay teen and said that he “considered suicide from time to time.”

“Like a lot of ‘different’ kids, I was teased for reasons I didn’t understand, and I had quite a lot of difficulty building friendships and growing into the healthy mindset that it was okay to be a little different,” Conte wrote.

In high school, Conte said he became friends with another “very different kid.” 

“Before we could become close, before we could confide our challenges in each other, he hung himself,” Conte wrote. 

“I think that if I had heard from diverse voices like (Pancholy's) in an auditorium setting telling me that it was okay to be different, maybe my middle and high school experience could have been different,” he continued. “A presentation of this sort could have saved a life, like the life of my friend.”

According to the The Trevor Project, LGBTQ students at LGBTQ-affirming schools are 30% less likely to be bullied by their peers. Pancholy's work focuses on youth in the AAPI community.

“When I was a kid, I was often made to feel ashamed for just being who I was. I was made to feel ashamed for being Indian. I was made to feel ashamed for being scrawny and little for my age. I was made to feel shame for being gay," Pancholy said in 2015 . "And there were times when I was a kid that I actually felt unsafe for being who I was. And there are times as an adult, where I continue to sometimes feel unsafe for being who I am.”

Rachel Paula Abrahamson is a lifestyle reporter who writes for the parenting, health and shop verticals. Her bylines have appeared in The New York Times, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, and elsewhere. Rachel lives in the Boston area with her husband and their two daughters. Follow her on Instagram .