research on school bullying

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

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

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

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

108k Accesses

18 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Study outcome

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

Primary exposure

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

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

Statistical analyses

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

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

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

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Code availability

Not applicable.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Håkan Källmén

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

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

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

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

Posted May 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Hara Estroff Marano

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

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

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

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

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

Silence facilitates traumatization

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

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

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

The impact of bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State-by-state legislation

Bullying prevention programs (the KiVA program is also notable)

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

Trauma-informed teaching

US Government Stop Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Advertisement

Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 30 June 2022
• Volume 5 , pages 319–330, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Nathalie Noret   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4393-1887 1 ,
• Simon C. Hunter   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3922-1252 2 , 3 ,
• Sofia Pimenta   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9680-514X 4 ,
• Rachel Taylor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1803-1449 4 &
• Rebecca Johnson   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7359-6595 2  

3519 Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The open science movement has developed out of growing concerns over the scientific standard of published academic research and a perception that science is in crisis (the “replication crisis”). Bullying research sits within this scientific family and without taking a full part in discussions risks falling behind. Open science practices can inform and support a range of research goals while increasing the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to explain the relevance of open science for bullying research and discuss some of the questionable research practices which challenge the replicability and integrity of research. We also consider how open science practices can be of benefit to research on school bullying. In doing so, we discuss how open science practices, such as pre-registration, can benefit a range of methodologies including quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach. To support researchers in adopting more open practices, we also highlight a range of relevant resources and set out a series of recommendations to the bullying research community.

Similar content being viewed by others

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

Pseudoscience, an Emerging Field, or Just a Framework Without Outcomes? A Bibliometric Analysis and Case Study Presentation of Social Justice Research

Methodology

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Bullying in school is a common experience for many children and adolescents. Such experiences relate to a range of adverse outcomes, including poor mental health, poorer academic achievement, and anti-social behaviour (Gini et al., 2018 ; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010 ; Valdebenito et al., 2017 ). Bullying research has increased substantially over the past 60 years, with over 5000 articles published between 2010 and 2016 alone (Volk et al., 2017 ). Much of this research focuses on the prevalence and antecedents of bullying, correlates of bullying, and the development and evaluation of anti-bullying interventions (Volk et al., 2017 ). The outcomes of this work for children and young people can therefore be life changing, and researchers should strive to ensure that their work is trustworthy, reliable, and accessible to a wide range of stakeholders both inside and outside of academia.

In recent years, the replication crisis has led to growing concern regarding the standard of research practices in the social sciences (Munafò et al., 2017 ). To address this, open science practices, such as openly sharing publications and data, conducting replication studies, and the pre-registration of research protocols, have provided the opportunity to increase the transparency and trustworthiness of the research process. In this paper, we aim to discuss the replication crisis and highlight the risks that questionable research practices pose for bullying research. We also aim to summarise open science practices and outline how these can benefit the broad spectrum of bullying research as well as to researchers themselves. Specifically, we aim to highlight how such practices can benefit both quantitative and qualitative research and studies employing a participatory research methods approach.

The Replication Crisis

In 2015, the Open Science Collaboration (Open Science Collaboration, 2015 ) conducted a large-scale replication of 100 published studies from three journals. The results questioned the replicability of research findings in psychology. In the original 100 studies, 97 reported a significant effect compared to only 35 of the replications. Furthermore, the effect sizes reported in the original studies were typically much larger than those found in the replications. The findings of the Open Science Collaboration received significant academic and mainstream media attention, which concluded that psychological research is in crisis (Wiggins & Chrisopherson, 2019 ). While these findings are based on the analysis of psychological research, challenges in replicating research findings have been reported in a range of disciplines including sociology (Freese & Peterson, 2017 ) and education studies (Makel & Pluker, 2014 ). Shrout and Rodgers ( 2018 ) suggest that the notion that science is in crisis is further supported by (1) the number of serious cases of academic misconduct such as that of Diederick Stapel (Nelson et al., 2018 ) and (2) the prevalence of questionable research practices and misuse of inferential statistics and hypothesis testing (see Ioannidis, 2005 ). The replication crisis has called into question the degree to which research across the social sciences accurately describes the world that we live in or whether this literature is overwhelmingly populated by misleading claims based on weak and error-strewn findings.

The trustworthiness of research reflects the quality of the method, rigour of the design, and the extent to which results are reliable and valid (Cook et al., 2018 ). Research on school bullying has grown exponentially in recent years (Smith & Berkkun, 2020 ) and typically focuses on understanding the nature, prevalence, and consequences of bullying to inform prevention and intervention efforts. If our research is not trustworthy, this can impede theory development and call into question the reliability of our research and meta-analytic findings (Friese & Frankenbach, 2020 ). Ultimately, if our research findings are untrustworthy, this undermines our efforts to prevent bullying and help and support young people. Bullying research exists within a broader academic research culture, which facilitates and incentivises the ways that research is undertaken and shared. As such, the issues that have been identified have direct relevance to those working in bullying.

The Incentive Culture in Academia

“The relentless drive for research excellence has created a culture in modern science that cares exclusively about what is achieved and not about how it is achieved.”

Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust (Farrar, 2019 ).

In academia, career progression is closely tied to publication record. As such, academics feel under considerable pressure to publish frequently in high-quality journals to advance their careers (Grimes et al., 2018 ; Munafò et al., 2017 ). Yet, the publication process itself is biased toward accepting novel or statistically significant findings for publication (Renkewitz & Heene, 2019 ). This bias fuels a perception that non-significant results will not be published (the “file drawer problem”: Rosenthal, 1979 ). This can result in researchers employing a range of questionable research practices to achieve a statistically significant finding in order to increase the likelihood that a study will be accepted for publication. Taken together, this can lead to a perverse “scientific process” where achieving statistical significance is more important than the quality of the research itself (Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2018 ).

Questionable Research Practices

Questionable research practices (QRPs) can occur at all stages of the research process (Munafò et al., 2017 ). These practices differ from research misconduct in that they do not typically involve the deliberate intent to deceive or engage in fraudulent research practices (Stricker & Günther, 2019 ). Instead, QRPs are characterised by misrepresentation, inaccuracy, and bias (Steneck, 2006 ). All are of direct relevance to the work of scholars in the bullying field since each weakens our ability to achieve meaningful change for children and young people. QRPs emerge directly from “researcher degrees of freedom” that occur at all stages of the research process and which simply reflect the many decisions that researchers make with regard to their hypotheses, methodological design, data analyses, and reporting of results (see Wicherts et al., 2016 for an extensive list of researcher degrees of freedom). These decisions pose fundamental threats to how robust a study is as each compromises the likelihood that findings accurately model a psychological or social process (Munafò et al., 2017 ). QRPs include p -hacking; hypothesising after the result is known (HARKing); conducting studies with low statistical power; and the misuse of p values (Chambers et al., 2014 ). Such QRPs may reflect a misunderstanding of inferential statistics (Sijtsma, 2016 ). A misunderstanding of statistical theory can also lead to a lack of awareness regarding the nature and impact of QRPs (Sijtsma, 2016 ). This includes the prevailing approach to quantitative data analysis, Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) (Lyu et al., 2018 ; Travers et al., 2017 ), which is overwhelmingly the approach used in the bullying field. QRPs can fundamentally threaten the degree to which research in bullying can be trusted, replicated, and effective in efforts to implement successful and impactful intervention or prevention programs.

P -hacking (or data-dredging) reflects methods of re-analysing data in different ways to find a significant result (Raj et al., 2018 ). Such methods can include the selective deletion of outliers, selectively controlling for variables, recoding variables in different ways, or selectively reporting the results of structural equation models (Simonsohn et al., 2014 ). While there are various methods of p -hacking, the end goal is the same: to find a significant result in a data set, often when initial analyses fail to do so (Friese & Frankenbach, 2020 ).

There are no available data on the degree to which p -hacking is a problem in bullying research per se, but the nature of the methods commonly used mean it is a clear and present danger. For example, the inclusion of multiple outcome measures (allowing those with the “best” results to be cherry-picked for publication), measures of involvement in bullying that can be scored or analysed in multiple ways (e.g. as a continuous measure or as a method to categorise participants as involved or not), and the presence of a diverse selection of demographic variables (which can be selectively included or excluded from analyses) all provide researchers with an array of possible analytic approaches. Such options pose a risk for p -hacking as decisions can be made on the results of statistical fishing (i.e. hunting to find significant effects) rather than on any underpinning theoretical rationale.

P -hacking need not be driven by a desire to deceive; rather, it can be used by well-meaning researchers and their wish to honestly identify useful or interesting findings (Wicherts et al., 2016 ). Sadly, even in this case, the impact of p- hacking remains profoundly problematic for the field. The p- hacking process biases the literature towards erroneous significant results and inflated effect sizes, impacting on our understanding of any issue that we seek to understand better, and biasing effect size estimates reported in meta-analyses (Friese & Frankenbach, 2020 ). While such effects may seem remote or of only academic interest, they compromise all that we in the bullying field seek to accomplish because they make it much less likely that effective, impactful, and meaningful intervention and prevention strategies can be identified and implemented.

Typically, quantitative research follows the hypothetico-deductive model (Popper, 1959 ). From this perspective, hypotheses are formulated based on appropriate theory and previous research (Rubin, 2017 ). Once written, the study is designed, and data are collected and analysed (Rubin, 2017 ). Hypothesising after the result is known, or HARKing (Kerr, 1998 ), occurs when researchers amend their hypotheses to reflect their completed data analysis (Kerr, 1998 ). HARKing results in confusion between confirmatory and exploratory data analysis (Shrout & Rodgers, 2018 ), creating a literature where hypotheses are always confirmed and never falsified. This inhibits theory development (Rubin, 2017 ) in part because “progress” is, in fact, the accumulation of type 1 errors.

Low Statistical Power

Statistical power reflects the power in a statistical test to find an effect if there is one to find (Cohen, 2013 ). There are concerns regarding the sample sizes used in bullying research, as experiences of bullying are typically of a low frequency and positively skewed (Vessey et al., 2014 ; Volk et al., 2017 ). Low statistical power is problematic in two ways. First, it increases the type II error rate (the probability of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis), meaning that researchers may fail to report important and meaningful effects. Statistically significant effects can still be found under the conditions of low statistical power; however, the size of these effects is likely to be exaggerated due to a lower positive predictive value (the probability of a statistically significant result being genuine) (Button et al., 2013 ). In this case, researchers may find significant effects even in small samples, but those effects are at risk of being inflated.

QRPs in Qualitative Research

Apart from the previously discussed issues, there are also QRPs in qualitative work. Mainly, these involve issues pertaining to trustworthiness such as credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (See Shenton, 2004 ). One factor that can influence perceptions about qualitative work is the possibility of subjectivity or different interpretations of the same data (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019 ). Additionally, the idea that the researcher will be biased and that their experiences, beliefs, and personal history will all influence how they both collect and interpret data has also been discussed (Berger, 2015 ). Clearly stating the positionality of the researcher and how their experiences informed their current research (the process of reflexivity) can help others better understand their interpretation of the data (Berger, 2015 ). Finally, one decision that qualitative researchers should consider when thinking about their designs is their stopping criteria. This might imply code or meaning saturation (see Hennink et al., 2017 , for more detail on how these two types are different from one another). Thus, making it clear in the conceptualisation process when and how the data collection will stop is important to assure transparency and high-quality research. This is not a complete list of QRPs in qualitative research, but these seem to be the most urgent when it comes to bullying research when thinking about open science.

The Prevalence and Impact of QRPs

Identifying the prevalence of QRPs and academic misconduct is challenging as this is reliant on self-reports. In their survey of 2155 psychologists, John et al. ( 2012 ) identified that 78% of participants had not reported all dependent measures, 72% had collected more data after finding their statistical effects were not statistically significant, 67% reported selective reporting of studies that “worked” (yielded a significant effect), and 9% reported falsifying data. Such problematic practices have serious implications for the reliability of effects reported in the research literature (John et al., 2012 ), which can impact interventions and treatments such evidence may inform. Furthermore, De Vries et al. ( 2018 ) have highlighted how biases in the publication process threaten the validity of treatment results reported in the literature. Although focused on the treatment of depression, their work has clear lessons for the bullying research community. They demonstrate how the bias towards reporting more positive, significant effects, distorts a literature in favour of treatments that appear efficacious but are much less so in practice (Box 1 ).

Box 1 The Replication Crisis

Munafò et al. ( 2017 ) outline a manifesto for reproducible research, highlighting problems with current research practices.

Shrout and Rodgers  ( 2018 ) provide an overview of the replication crisis and questionable research practices.

Steneck ( 2006 ) provides a detailed overview of definitions of academic misconduct, questionable research practices, and academic integrity.

Open Science

Confronting these challenges can be daunting, but open science offers several strategies that researchers in the bullying field can use to increase the transparency, reproducibility, and openness of their research. The most common practices include openly sharing publications and data, encouraging replication, pre-registration, and open peer-review. Below, we provide an overview of open science practices, with a particular focus on pre-registration and replication studies. We recommend that researchers begin by using those practices that they can most easily integrate into their work, building their repertoire of open science actions over time. We provide a series of recommendations for the school bullying research community alongside summaries of useful supporting resources (Box 2 ).

Box 2 Key Reading on Open Science

Banks et al. ( 2019 ) discuss frequently asked questions about open science providing a good overview of open science practices and contemporary debates.

Crüwell et al. ( 2019 ) provide an annotated reading list on important papers in open science.

Gehlbach and Robinson ( 2021 ) in their introduction to a special edition of the journal Educational Psychologist they discuss the adoption of open science practices in the context of what they term “old school” research practices.

Lindsay ( 2020 ) outlines a series of steps researchers can take to integrate open science practices into their research.

Open Publication, Open Data, and Reporting Standards

Open publication.

Ensuring research publications are openly available by providing access to pre-print versions of papers or paying for publishers to make articles openly available is now a widely adopted practice (Concannon et al., 2019 ; McKiernan et al., 2016 ). Articles can be hosted on websites such as ResearchGate and/or on institutional repositories, allowing a wider pool of potential stakeholders to access relevant bullying research and increasing the impact of research (Concannon et al., 2019 ). This process also supports access for the research and practice communities in low- and middle-income countries where even Universities may be unable to pay journal subscriptions. The authors can also share pre-print versions of their papers for comment and review before submitting them to a journal for review using an online digital repository, such as PsyArXiv. Sharing publications in this way can encourage both early feedback on articles and the faster dissemination of research findings (Chiarelli et al., 2019 ).

Making data and data analysis scripts openly available is also encouraged, can enable further data analysis (e.g. meta-analysis), and facilitates replication (Munafò et al., 2017 ; Nosek & Bar-Anan, 2012 ). It also enables the collation of larger data sets, and secondary data analyses to test different hypotheses. Several publications on bullying in school are based on the secondary analysis of openly shared data (e.g. Dantchev & Wolke, 2019 ; Przybylski & Bowes, 2017 ) and highlight the benefits of such analyses. Furthermore, although limited in number, examples of papers on school bullying where data, research materials, and data analysis scripts are openly shared are emerging (e.g. Przybylski, 2019 ).

Bullying data often includes detailed personal accounts of experiences and the impact of bullying. Such data are highly sensitive, and there may be a risk that individuals can be identified. To address such sensitivities, Meyer ( 2018 ) (see box 3 ) proposes a tiered approach to the consent process, where participants are actively involved in decisions around what parts of their data and where their data are shared. Meyer ( 2018 ) also highlights the importance of selecting the right repository for your data. Some repositories are entirely open, whereas others only provide access to suitably qualified researchers. While bullying data pose particular ethical challenges, the sharing of all data is encouraged (Bishop, 2009 ; McLeod & O’Connor, 2020 ).

Reporting Standards

Reporting standards are standards for reporting a research study and provide useful guidance on what methodological and analytical information should be included in a research paper (Munafò et al., 2017 ). Such guidelines aim to ensure sufficient information is provided to enable replication and promote transparency (Munafò et al., 2017 ). Journal publishers are now beginning to outline what open science practices should be reported in articles. For example, from July 2021, when submitting a paper for review in one of the American Psychological Association journals, the authors are now required to state whether their data will be openly shared and whether or not their study was pre-registered. In a bullying context, Smith and Berkkun ( 2020 ) have highlighted that important contextual data is often missing from publications and recommend, for example, that the gender and age of participants alongside the country and date of data collection should be included as standard in papers on bullying in school.

Recommendations:

Researchers to start to share all research materials openly using an online repository. Box 3 provides some useful guidance on how to support the open sharing of research materials.

Journal editors and publishers to further promote the open sharing of research material.

Researchers to follow the recommendations set out by Smith and Berkkun ( 2020 ) and follow a set of reporting standards when reporting bullying studies.

Reviewers be mindful of Smith and Berkkun ( 2020 ) recommendations when reviewing bullying papers.

Box 3 Useful Resources on Openly Sharing Research Materials & Reporting Standards

Banks et al. ( 2019 ) provide a helpful overview of open science practices, alongside a set of recommendations for ensuring research is more open.

Meyer ( 2018 ) provides some useful guidance on managing the ethical issues of openly sharing data.

The Equator Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/ ) is a useful resource for the sharing of different reporting standards, for example, the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and STROBE standards for observational studies.

The Foster website is an online e-learning portal with a wealth of resources to help researchers develop open science practices https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/ , including sharing resources and pre-prints.

The Open Science Framework has resources to support open science practices and to use their platform https://www.cos.io/products/osf .

Smith and Berkkun ( 2020 ) provide a review of contextual information reported in bullying research papers and offer recommendations on what information to include.

The PsyArXiv https://psyarxiv.com and SocArXiv https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv repositories accept pre-print publications in psychology and sociology.

Replication Studies

Replicated findings increase confidence in the reliability of that finding, ensuring research findings are robust and enabling science to self-correct (Cook et al., 2018 ; Drotar, 2010 ). Replication reflects the ability of a researcher to duplicate the results of a prior study with new data (Goodman et al., 2018 ). There are different forms of replication that can be broadly categorised into two: those that aim to recreate the exact conditions of an earlier study (exact/direct replication) and those that aim to test the same hypotheses again using a different method (conceptual replication) (Schmidt, 2009 ). Replication studies are considered fundamental in establishing whether study findings are consistent and trustworthy (Cook et al., 2018 ).

To date, few replication studies have been conducted on bullying in schools. A Web of Science search using the Boolean search term bully* alongside the search term “replication” identified two replication studies (Berdondini & Smith, 1996 ; Huitsing et al., 2020 ). Such a small number of replications may reflect concerns regarding the value of these and concerns about how to conduct such work when data collection is so time and resource-intensive. In addition, school gatekeepers are themselves interested in novelty and addressing their own problems and may be reluctant to participate in a study which has “already been done”. One possible solution to this challenge is to increase the number of large-scale collaborations among bullying researchers (e.g. multiple researchers across many sites collecting the same data). Munafò et al. ( 2017 ) highlight the benefits of collaboration and “team science” to build capacity in a research project. They argue that greater collaboration through team science would enable researchers to undertake higher-powered studies and relieve the pressure on single researchers. Such projects also have the benefit of increasing generalisability across settings and populations.

Undertake direct replications or, as a more manageable first step, include aspects of replication within larger studies.

Journal editors to actively promote the submission of replication studies on school bullying.

Journal editors, editorial panels, and reviewers to recognise the value of replication studies rather than favouring new or novel findings (Box 4 ).

Box 4 Useful Resources on Replication Studies

Brandt et al. ( 2014 ) provide a useful step by step guide on conducting replication studies, including a registration template form for pre-registering a replication study (available here: https://osf.io/4jd46/ ).

Coyne et al. ( 2016 ) discuss the benefits of replication to research in educational research (with a particular focus on special education).

Duncan et al. ( 2014 ) discuss the benefits of replication to research in developmental psychology.

Pre-Registration

Pre-registration requires researchers to set out, in advance of any data collection, their hypotheses, research design, and planned data analysis (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). Pre-registering a study reduces the number of researcher degrees of freedom as all decisions are outlined at the start of a project. However, to date, there have been few pre-registered studies in bullying. There are two forms of pre-registration: the pre-registration of analysis plans and registered reports. In a pre-registered analysis plan, the hypotheses, research design, and analysis plan are registered in advance. These plans are then stored in an online repository (e.g. the Open Science Framework (OSF) or AsPredicted website), which is then time-stamped as a record of the planned research project (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). Registered reports, however, integrate the pre-registration of methods and analyses into the publication process (Chambers et al., 2014 ). With a registered report, researchers can submit their introduction and proposed methods and analyses to a journal for peer review. This creates a two-tier peer-review process, where the registered reports can be accepted in principle or rejected in the first stage of review, based on the rigour of the proposed methods and analysis plans rather than on the findings of the study (Hardwicke & Ioannidis, 2018 ). In the second stage of the review process, the authors then submit the complete paper (at a later date after data have been collected and analyses completed), and this is also reviewed. The decision to accept a study is therefore explicitly based on the quality of the research process rather than the outcome (Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2018 ) and in practice, almost no work is ever rejected following an in-principal acceptance at stage 1 (C. Chambers, personal communication, December 11, 2020). At the time of writing, over 270 journals accept registered reports, many of which are directly relevant to bullying researchers (e.g. Developmental Science, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Journal of Educational Psychology).

Pre-registration offers one approach for improving the validity of bullying research. Employing greater use of pre-registration would complement other recommendations on how to improve research practices in bullying research. For example, Volk et al. ( 2017 ) propose a “bullying research checklist” (see Box 5 ).

Box 5 Volk et al. ( 2017 ) Bullying Research Checklist ( reproduced with permission )

State and justify your chosen definition of bullying.

Outline the theoretical logic underlying your hypotheses and how it pertains to your chosen definition and program of research/intervention.

Use one's logic model and theoretical predictions to determine which kind of measurements are most appropriate for testing one's hypotheses. There is no gold standard measure of bullying, but be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the different types of measures. Where possible, use complementary forms of measurement and reporters to offset any weaknesses.

Implement an appropriate research or intervention design (longitudinal if possible) and recruit an appropriate sample.

Reflect upon the final product, its associations with the chosen logic model and theory, and explicitly discuss important pertinent limitations with a particular emphasis on issues concerning the theoretical validity of one's findings.

Volk et al.’s ( 2017 ) checklist highlights the importance of setting out in advance the definition of bullying, alongside the theoretical underpinnings for the hypotheses.

Pre-Registering Quantitative Studies

The pre-registration of quantitative studies requires researchers to state the hypotheses, method, and planned data analysis in advance of any data collection (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). When outlining the hypotheses being tested, researchers are required to outline the background and theoretical underpinning of the study. This reflects the importance of theoretically led hypotheses (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ), which are more appropriately tested using NHST and inferential statistics in a confirmatory rather than exploratory design (Wagenmakers et al., 2012 ). Requiring researchers to state their hypotheses in advance of any data collection adheres to the confirmatory nature of inferential statistics and reduces the risk of HARKing (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). Following a description of the hypotheses, researchers outline the details of the planned method, including the design of the study, the sample, the materials and measures, and the procedure. Information on the nature of the study and how materials and measures will be used and scored are outlined in full. Researchers are required to provide a justification for and an indication of the desired sample size.

The final stage of the pre-registration process requires researchers to consider and detail all steps of the data analysis process. The data analysis plan should be outlined in terms of what hypotheses are tested using what analyses and any plans for follow-up analysis (e.g. post hoc testing and any exploratory analyses). Despite concerns to the contrary (Banks et al., 2019 ; Gonzales & Cunningham, 2015 ), the aim of pre-registration is not to devalue exploratory research, but rather, to make more explicit what is exploratory and what is confirmatory (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). While initially, the guidance on pre-registration focused more on confirmatory analyses, more recent guidance considers how researchers can pre-register exploratory studies (Dirnagl, 2020 ), and make a distinction between confirmatory versus exploratory research in the publication process (McIntosh, 2017 ). Irrespective of whether confirmatory or exploratory analyses are planned, pre-registering an analysis reduces the risk of p -hacking (van’t Veer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016 ). A final point, often a concern to those unfamiliar with open science practices, is that a pre-registration does not bind a researcher to a single way of analysing data. Changes to plans are entirely acceptable when they are deemed necessary and are described transparently.

Pre-Registering Qualitative Studies

Pre-registration of qualitative studies is still relatively new (e.g. Kern & Gleditsch, 2017a , b ; Piñeiro & Rosenblatt, 2016 ). This is because most of the work uses inductive and hypothesis-generating approaches. Coffman and Niederle ( 2015 ) argue that this hypothesis-generation is one of the most important reasons why pre-registering qualitative work is so important. This could help distinguish between what hypotheses are generated from the data and which were hypotheses conceptualised from the start. Therefore, it could even be argued that pre-registering qualitative research encourages exploratory work. Using pre-registration prior to a hypothesis-generating study will also help with the internal validity of this same study, as it will be possible to have a sense of how the research evolved from before to post data collection.

Using investigator triangulation, where multiple researchers share and discuss conclusions and findings of the data, and reach a common understanding, could improve the trustworthiness of a qualitative study (Carter et al., 2014 ). Similarly, where establishing intercoder reliability is appropriate, the procedures demonstrating how this is achieved can be communicated and recorded in advance. One example of this would be the use of code books. When analysing qualitative data, developing a code book that could be used by all the coders could help with intercoder reliability and overall trustworthiness (Guest et al., 2012 ). These are elements that could be considered in the pre-registration process by clearly outlining if intercoder reliability is used and, if so, how this is done. To improve the transparency of pre-registered qualitative work, it has also been suggested that researchers should clearly state whether, if something outside the scope of the interview comes to light, such novel experiences will also be explored with the participant (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019 ; Kern & Gleditsch, 2017a , b ). Issues of subjectivity, sometimes inherent to qualitative work, can be reduced as a result of pre-registering because it allows the researcher to clearly consider all the elements of the study and have a plan before data collection and analysis, which reduces levels of subjectivity.

Kern and Gleditsch ( 2017a , b ) provide some practical suggestions on how to use pre-registration with qualitative studies. For example, when using in-depth interviews, one should make the interview schedule and questions available to help others to comprehend what the participants were asked. Similarly, they suggest that all recruitment and sampling strategy plans should be included to improve transparency (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019 ; Kern & Gleditsch, 2017a , b ). Piñeiro and Rosenblatt ( 2016 ) provide an overview of how these pre-registrations could be achieved. They suggested three main elements: conceptualisation of the study, theory (inductive or deductive in nature), and design (working hypothesis, sampling, tools for data collection). More recently, Haven and Van Grootel ( 2019 ) highlighted a lack of flexibility in the existing pre-register templates to adapt to qualitative work, as such, they adapted an OSF template to a qualitative study.

Integrating Participatory Research Methods into Pre-Registration

Participatory research methods (PRMs) aim to address power imbalances within the research process and validate the local expertise and knowledge of marginalised groups (Morris, 2002 ). The key objective of PRM is to include individuals from the target population, also referred to as “local experts”, as meaningful partners and co-creators of knowledge. A scoping review of PRM in psychology recommends wider and more effective use (Levac et al., 2019 ). Researchers are calling specifically for youth involvement in bullying studies to offer their insight, avoid adult speculation, and assist in the development of appropriate support materials (O’Brien, 2019 ; O’Brien & Dadswell, 2020 ). PRM is particularly appropriate for research with children and young people who experience bullying behaviours given their explicit, defined powerlessness. Research has shown that engaging young people in bullying research, while relatively uncommon, provides lasting positive outcomes for both researchers and participants (Gibson et al., 2015 ; Lorion, 2004 ).

Pre-registration has rarely been used in research undertaking a PRM approach. It is a common misconception that pre-registration is inflexible and places constraints on the participant-driven nature of PRM (Frankenhuis & Nettle, 2018 ). However, pre-registration still allows for the exploratory and subjective nature of PRM but in a more transparent way, with clear rationale and reasoning. An appropriate pre-registration method for PRM can utilise a combination of both theoretical and iterative pre-registration. Using a pre-registration template, researchers should aim to document the research process highlighting the main contributing theoretical underpinnings of their research, with anticipatory hypotheses and complementary analyses (Haven & Van Grootel, 2019 ). This initial pre-registration can then be supported using iterative documentation detailing ongoing project development. This can include utilising workflow tools or online notebooks, which show insights into the procedure of co-researchers and collaborative decision making (Kern & Gleditsch, 2017a , b ). This creates an evidence trail of how the research evolved, providing transparency, reflexivity, and credibility to the research process.

The Perceived Challenges of Pre-Registration.

To date, there have been few pre-registered studies in bullying. A Web of Science search using the Boolean search terms bully* peer-vict*, pre-reg*, and preregist* identified four pre-registered studies on school bullying (Kaufman et al., 2022 ; Legate et al., 2019 ; Leung, 2021 ; Noret et al., 2021 ). The lack of pre-registrations may reflect concerns that it is a difficult, rigid, and time-consuming process. Reischer and Cowan ( 2020 ) note that pre-registration should not be seen as a singular time-stamped rigid plan but as an ongoing working model with modifications. Change is possible so long as this is clearly and transparently articulated, for example, in an associated publication or in an open lab notebook (Schapira et al., 2019 ). The move to pre-registering a study requires a change in workflow rather than more absolute work. However, this early and detailed planning (especially concerning analytical procedures) can improve the focus on the quality of the research process (Ioannidis, 2008 ; Munafò et al., 2017 ).

The Impact of Pre-Registration.

The impact of pre-registration on reported effects can be extensive. The pre-registration of funded clinical trials in medicine has been a requirement since 2000. In an analysis of randomised control trials examining the role of drugs or supplements for intervening in or treating cardiovascular disease, Kaplan and Irvin ( 2015 ) identified a substantial change in the number of significant effects reported once pre-registration was introduced (57% reported significant effects prior to the requirement but and only 8% after). More recently, Scheel et al. ( 2021 ) compared the results of 71 pre-registered studies in psychology with the results published in 152 studies that were not pre-registered. They found that only 44% of the pre-registered studies reported a significant effect, compared to 96% of studies that were not pre-registered. As a result, the introduction of pre-registration has increased the number of null effects reported in the literature and presents a more reliable picture of the effects of particular interventions.

When conducting your next research study on bullying, consider pre-registering the study.

Journal editors and publishers to actively encourage registered reports as a submission format.

The Benefits of Open Science for Researchers

Employing more open science practices can often be challenging, in part because they force us to reconsider methods that are already “successful” (often synonymous with “those which result in publication”). Based on our own experience, this takes time and is best approached by beginning small and building up to a wider application of the practices we have outlined in this article. Alongside increasing the reliability of research, open science practices are associated with several career benefits for the researcher. Articles which use open science practices are more likely to be accepted for publication, are more visible, and are cited more frequently (Allen & Mehler, 2019 ). Open science can also lead to the development of more supportive networks for collaboration (Allen & Mehler, 2019 ). In terms of career advancement, Universities are beginning to reward engagement with science principals in their promotion criteria. For example, the University of Bristol (UK) will consider open research practices such as data sharing and pre-registration in promotion cases in 2020–21. Given that formal recognition such as this has been recommended by the European Union for some time (O’Carroll et al., 2017 ), it is likely to be an increasingly important part of career progression in academia (Box 6 ).

Box 6 Pre-Registration

van't Veer and Giner-Sorolla ( 2016 ) provide a clear overview of the pre-registration process and provide a template for the pre-registration of studies.

Center for Open Science YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PboPpcg6ik4 includes several webinars on pre-registration and the replication crisis. The OSF website also includes a number of pre-registration templates for researchers to use https://osf.io/zab38/wiki/home/?view , and provide a list of journals that accept registered reports https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered-reports

Haven and Van Grootel ( 2019 ) review the issues around pre-registering of qualitative work and adapted an existing pre-registering OSF template to suit these types of studies.

This paper sought to clarify the ways in which bullying research is undermined by a failure to engage with open science practices. It highlighted the potential benefits of open science for the way we conduct research on bullying. In doing so, we aimed to encourage the greater use of open science practices in bullying research. Given the importance of this for the safety and wellbeing of children and young people, the transparency and reliability of this research is paramount and is enhanced via greater use of open science practices. Ultimately, researchers working in the field of bullying are seeking to accurately understand and describe the experiences of children and young people. Open science practices make it more likely that we will achieve this goal and, as a result, be well-placed to develop and implement successful evidence-based intervention and prevention programs.

Allen, C., & Mehler, D. (2019). Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early acreer and beyond. PLoS Biology, 17 (5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000246

Article   Google Scholar  

Banks, G. C., Field, J. G., Oswald, F. L., O’Boyle, E. H., Landis, R. S., Rupp, D. E., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2019). Answers to 18 questions about open science practices. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34 (3), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9547-8

Berdondini, L., & Smith, P. K. (1996). Cohesion and power in the families of children involved in bully/victim problems at school: An Italian replication. Journal of Family Therapy , 18 , 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.1996.tb00036.x

Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15 (2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112468475

Bishop, L. (2009). Ethical sharing and reuse of qualitative data. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 44 (3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1839-4655.2009.tb00145.x

Brandt M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., Grange, J. A., Perugini, M., Spies, J. R., & van ’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 50 (1) 217 224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005

Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J., Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14 (5), 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., Dicenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41 (5), 545–547. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.545-547

Chambers, C. D., Feredoes, E., Muthukumaraswamy, S. D., & Etchells, P. J. (2014). Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered reports at AIMS neuroscience and beyond. AIMS Neuroscience, 1 (1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.3934/Neuroscience.2014.1.4

Chiarelli, A., Johnson, R., Richens, E., & Pinfield, S. (2019). Accelerating Scholarly Communication: the Transformative Role of Preprints. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3357727

Coffman, L. C., & Niederle, M. (2015). Pre-analysis plans have limited upside, especially where replications are feasible. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 (3), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.81

Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Academic Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Concannon, F., Costello, E., & Farrelly, T. (2019). Open science and educational research: An editorial commentary. Irish Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning , 4 (1), ii–v. https://doi.org/10.22554/ijtel.v4i1.61

Cook, B. G., Lloyd, J. W., Mellor, D., Nosek, B. A., & Therrien, W. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85 (1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138

Coyne, M. D., Cook, B. G., & Therrien, W. J. (2016). Recommendations for replication research in special education: A framework of systematic, conceptual replications. Remedial and Special Education, 37 (4), 244–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932516648463

Crüwell, S., Doorn, J. Van, Etz, A., Makel, M. C., Niebaum, J. C., Orben, A., Parsons, S., & Schulte, M. (2019). Seven easy steps to open science. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227 (4), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000387

Dantchev, S., & Wolke, D. (2019). Trouble in the nest: Antecedents of sibling bullying victimization and perpetration. Developmental Psychology , 55 (5), 1059–1071. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000700

De Vries, Y. A., Roest, A. M., De Jonge, P., Cuijpers, P., Munafò, M. R., & Bastiaansen, J. A. (2018). The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: The case of depression. Psychological Medicine, 48 (15), 2453–2455. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718001873

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dirnagl, U. (2020). Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery. PLoS Biology, 18 (3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000690

Drotar, D. (2010). Editorial: A call for replications of research in pediatric psychology and guidance for authors. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 35 (8), 801–805. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsq049

Duncan, G. J., Engel, M., Claessens, A., & Dowsett, C. J. (2014). Replication and robustness in developmental research. Developmental Psychology, 50 (11), 2417–2425. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037996

Farrar, J. (2019). Why we need to reimagine how we do research.  https://wellcome.org/news/why-we-need-reimagine-how-we-do-research . Accessed 18 December 2020.

Frankenhuis, W. E., & Nettle, D. (2018). Open science is liberating and can foster creativity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13 (4), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691618767878

Freese, J., & Peterson, D. (2017). Replication in social science. Annual Review of Sociology , 43 , 147–165.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053450

Friese, M., & Frankenbach, J. (2020). p-Hacking and publication bias interact to distort meta-analytic effect size estimates. Psychological Methods, 25 (4), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000246

Gehlbach, H., & Robinson, C. D. (2021). From old school to open science: The implications of new research norms for educational psychology and beyond. Educational Psychologist, 56 (2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1898961

Gibson, J., Flaspohler, P. D., & Watts, V. (2015). Engaging youth in bullying prevention through community-based participatory research. Family & Community Health, 38 (1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/FCH.0000000000000048

Gini, G., Card, N. A., & Pozzoli, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of the differential relations of traditional and cyber-victimization with internalizing problems. Aggressive Behavior, 44 (2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21742

Gonzales, J. E., & Cunningham, C. A. (2015). The promise of pre-registration in psychological research. Psychological Science Agenda , 29 (8), 2014–2017.  https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/08/pre-Registration . Accessed 18 December 2020.

Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). What does research reproducibility mean? Science Translational Medicine, 8 (341), 96–102. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027

Grimes, D. R., Bauch, C. T., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure. Royal Society Open Science, 5 (1), 171511. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171511

Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied thematic analysis . Sage.

Hardwicke, T. E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Mapping the universe of registered reports. Nature Human Behaviour , 2 , 793–796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0444-y

Haven, L. T., & Van Grootel, D. L. (2019). Preregistering qualitative research. Accountability in Research, 26 (3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2019.1580147

Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27 (4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344

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

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2 (8), 2–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology, 19 (5), 640–648. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e31818131e7

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23 (5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953

Kaplan, R. M., & Irvin, V. L. (2015). Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS ONE, 10 (8), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382

Kaufman, T. M., Laninga-Wijnen, L., & Lodder, G. M. (2022). Are victims of bullying primarily social outcasts? Person-group dissimilarities in relational, socio-behavioral, and physical characteristics as predictors of victimization. Child development, Early view. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13772

Kern, F., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2017a). Exploring pre-registration and pre-analysis plans for qualitative inference. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769

Kern, F. G., & Gleditsch, K. S. (2017b). Exploring pre-registration and pre-analysis plans for qualitative inference. Pre-Print , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14428.69769

Kerr, N. L. (1998). HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2 (3), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_4

Legate, N., Weinstein, N., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). Parenting strategies and adolescents’ cyberbullying behaviors: Evidence from a preregistered study of parent–child dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 (2), 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0962-y

Leung, A. N. M. (2021). To help or not to help: intervening in cyberbullying among Chinese cyber-bystanders. Frontiers in Psychology, 2625. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.483250

Levac, L., Ronis, S., Cowper-Smith, Y., & Vaccarino, O. (2019). A scoping review: The utility of participatory research approaches in psychology. Journal of Community Psychology, 47 (8), 1865–1892. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22231

Lindsay, D. S. (2020). Seven steps toward transparency and replicability in psychological science. Canadian Psychology/psychologie Canadienne, 61 (4), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000222

Lorion, R. P. (2004). The evolution of community-school bully prevention programs: Enabling participatory action research. Psykhe, 13 (2), 73–83.

Lyu, Z., Peng, K., & Hu, C. P. (2018). P-Value, confidence intervals, and statistical inference: A new dataset of misinterpretation. Frontiers in Psychology , 9 (JUN), 2016–2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00868

Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Facts are more important than novelty: Replication in the education sciences. Educational Researcher, 43 (6), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14545513

McIntosh, R. D. (2017). Exploratory reports: A new article type for Cortex. Cortex, 96 , A1–A4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2017.07.014

McKiernan, E. C., Bourne, P. E., Brown, C. T., Buck, S., Kenall, A., Lin, J., McDougall, D., Nosek, B. A. Ram, K., Soderberg, C. K., Spies, J. R., Thaney, K., Updegrove, A., Woo, K. H., Yarkoni, T. (2016). How open science helps researchers succeed. ELife , 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800

McLeod, J., O’Connor, K. (2020). Ethics, archives and data sharing in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1805310

Meyer, M. N. (2018). Practical tips for ethical data sharing. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1 (1), 131–144.

Morris, M. (2002). Participatory research and action: A guide to becoming a researcher for social change. In Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women . https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353506067853

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Sert, P. D., & N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E. J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Development, 19 (2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x

Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 , 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836

Noret, N., Hunter, S. C., & Rasmussen, S. (2021). The role of cognitive appraisals in the relationship between peer-victimization and depressive symptomatology in adolescents: A longitudinal study. School mental health, 13 (3), 548–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-021-09414-0

Nosek, B. A., & Bar-Anan, Y. (2012). Scientific Utopia: I. Opening Scientific Communication. Psychological Inquiry, 23 (3), 217–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.692215

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

O’Brien, N., & Dadswell, A. (2020). Reflections on a participatory research project exploring bullying and school self-exclusion: Power dynamics, practicalities and partnership working. Pastoral Care in Education, 38 (3), 208–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2020.1788126

O’Carroll, C., Rentier, B., Cabello Valdes, C., Esposito, F., Kaunismaa, E., Maas, K., Metcalfe, J., McAllister, D., & Vandevelde, K. (2017). Evaluation of Research Careers fully acknowledging Open Science Practices-Rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing Open Science. Publication Office of the Europen Union . https://doi.org/10.2777/75255

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science , 349 . https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716

Piñeiro, R., & Rosenblatt, F. (2016). Pre-analysis plans for qualitative research. Revista De Ciencia Política (santiago), 36 (3), 785–796. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-090x2016000300009

Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery . Hutchins and Company.

Przybylski, A. K. (2019). Exploring adolescent cyber victimization in mobile games: Preliminary evidence from a British cohort. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22 (3), 227–231. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2018.0318

Przybylski, A. K., & Bowes, L. (2017). Cyberbullying and adolescent well-being in England: A population-based cross-sectional study. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 1 (1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30011-1

Raj, A. T., Patil, S., Sarode, S., & Salameh, Z. (2018). P-Hacking: A wake-up call for the scientific community. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24 (6), 1813–1814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9984-1

Reischer, H. N., & Cowan, H. R. (2020). Quantity over quality? Reproducible psychological science from a mixed methods perspective. Collabra: Psychology , 6 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.284

Renkewitz, F., & Heene, M. (2019). The replication crisis and open science in psychology: Methodological challenges and developments. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 227 (4), 233–236. https://doi.org/10.1027/a000001

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “File Drawer Problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (3), 638–641.

Rubin, M. (2017). When does HARKing hurt? Identifying when different types of undisclosed post hoc hypothesizing harm scientific progress. Review of General Psychology, 21 (4), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000128

Scheel, A. M., Schijen, M. R., & Lakens, D. (2021). An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard psychology literature with registered reports. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4 (2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211007467

Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13 (2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108

Schapira, M., The Open Lab Notebook Consortium, & Harding, R. J. (2019). Open laboratory notebooks: Good for science, good for society, good for scientists. F1000Research , 8 :87.  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17710.2

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845

Sijtsma, K. (2016). Playing with data—Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika, 81 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0

Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: A key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143 (2), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033242

Smith, P. K., & Berkkun, F. (2020). How prevalent is contextual information in research on school bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61 (1), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12537

Steneck, N. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12 (1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-006-0006-y

Stricker, J., & Günther, A. (2019). Scientific misconduct in psychology: A systematic review of prevalence estimates and new empirical data. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 227 (1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000356

Travers, J. C., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2017). Null hypothesis significance testing and p values. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 32 (4), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12147

Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M. M., Eisner, M., & Gaffney, H. (2017). Weapon carrying in and out of school among pure bullies, pure victims and bully-victims: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33 , 62–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.004

van ’t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Pre-registration in social psychology—A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67 , 2–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.004

Vessey, J., Strout, T. D., DiFazio, R. L., & Walker, A. (2014). Measuring the youth bullying experience : A systematic review of the psychometric. Journal of School Health , 84 (12).

Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and compatibility of bullying research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36 , 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.07.003

Wagenmakers, E. J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (6), 632–638. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612463078

Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., & van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid P-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832

Wiggins, B. J., & Chrisopherson, C. D. (2019). The replication crisis in psychology: An overview for theoretical and philosophical psychology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 39 (4), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000137

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Education, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, UK

Nathalie Noret

Department of Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK

Simon C. Hunter & Rebecca Johnson

Graduate School of Education, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Simon C. Hunter

School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1QE, UK

Sofia Pimenta & Rachel Taylor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Noret .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare 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

Noret, N., Hunter, S.C., Pimenta, S. et al. Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 5 , 319–330 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00130-0

Download citation

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 30 June 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00130-0

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 research
• Open science
• Pre-registration
• Replication
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Defining school bullying and its implications on education, teachers and learners

Contributing to UNESCO’s work on fostering safe learning environments , which addresses many different forms of violence, the UNESCO Chair on Bullying and Cyberbullying, in collaboration with the World Anti-Bullying Forum (WABF), led an international working group to create a more holistic and inclusive definition of school bullying. Professor James O’Higgins Norman, UNESCO Chair on Bullying and Cyberbullying, shares his insights on this work.

Why revisit the definition of bullying?

Many current anti-bullying programmes in schools are rooted in early definitions characterizing bullying as an “unwanted aggressive behavior that is repeated over time and involves an imbalance of power or strength”. While this was groundbreaking at the time and advanced the work of researchers, policy makers, educators and others, evolving perspectives have deepened our understanding of bullying.

Research shows that progress in reducing school bullying has been slow, with only a 19% decrease in perpetration and a 15% drop in the rate of learners facing bullying. This means we must reassess our understanding and approaches to bullying, especially in our increasingly complex world, where both in-person and online bullying intertwine with personal and societal issues.

How are you revisiting the definition of bullying?

As a UNESCO Chair, my role involves facilitating interdisciplinary research and dialogue, and working towards a more holistic approach to bullying. Our recommendation for a ‘whole-education’ approach to tackle bullying recognizes individual, contextual, and societal dimensions.

With support from UNESCO and the WABF, I facilitated the working group to revisit the definition of bullying, consulting scholars, policymakers and practitioners worldwide. We gathered feedback from a diverse group and have conducted wide consultations. This working group was launched following the recommendations by a Scientific Committee on preventing and addressing school bullying and cyberbullying, convened by UNESCO and the French Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.

What would a revised definition mean for education policymakers and practitioners, for school communities and learners?

The proposed definition promotes a holistic and inclusion-driven approach to tackling bullying and violence in schools and in online spaces. 

Crafting a more inclusive definition has the potential to break down academic and professional barriers, encouraging cooperation between sectors, and among scholars, policymakers, educators, and learners. It provides a solid foundation to better understand bullying particularly regarding those most marginalized due to appearance, ethnicity, gender, social class, or sexuality, among others. Bullying is a complex issue tied to individual, contextual, and structural factors, making collaboration essential.

Together, we can deepen our understanding and address not only the behavior but also the underlying systems and ideologies supporting bullying.

What is your vision for this improved definition of school bullying?

My vision aligns with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4, on education, in that our work on bullying, and all other forms of school violence, is aimed at ensuring an inclusive and equitable quality education and the promotion of lifelong learning opportunities for all. 

What message do you have for teachers and learners?

To teachers and school staff: Do not accept bullying as normal. Create a safe classroom environment by setting clear expectations for kindness and respect, remain vigilant for signs of bullying, stay informed about effective prevention strategies, and promptly address any incidents. Implement a robust anti-bullying policy. Under the idea of a ‘whole-education’ approach, collaborate with colleagues and parents, incorporate empathy and anti-bullying content into the curriculum, and use collaborative learning methods.

To learners: Report bullying, be confident in recognizing and responding to it, and encourage bystander intervention. You have the power to stop bullying.

New definition and what’s next?

The working group presented its proposed revised definition of school bullying at the WABF held in October 2023. The proposed definition reads:

School bullying is a damaging social process that is characterized by an imbalance of power driven by social (societal) and institutional norms. It is often repeated and manifests as unwanted interpersonal behaviour among students or school personnel that causes physical, social, and emotional harm to the targeted individuals or groups, and the wider school community.

This new inclusive definition of school bullying was largely welcomed by delegates at the Forum. The UNESCO Chair and WABF hope that this revised definition will contribute to opening a new chapter in the global conversation on the nature of and responses to bullying and cyberbullying. 

For UNESCO, the new definition of bullying reflects our approach and work to ensure that schools are safe and supportive learning environments. This means that to end all forms of school violence, including bullying, we must understand that these behaviours do not happen in isolation, that there are different drivers of violence, and that a ‘whole-education’ approach is needed. 

More information

Related items.

• International Day Against Violence and Bullying at School, including Cyberbullying
• Health education
• Topics: Display
• See more add

More on this subject

Other recent news

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

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

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

Wanderlei abadio de oliveira.

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

Marta Angélica Iossi Silva

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

Flávia Carvalho Malta de Mello

Denise lopes porto.

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

Andréa Cristina Mariano Yoshinaga

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

Deborah Carvalho Malta

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study's design

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

Study setting and sampling

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

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

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

Studied variables

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

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

Statistical Analysis

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

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

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

Ethical issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

School bullying, bystander behavior, and mental health among adolescents: the mediating roles of self-efficacy and coping styles.

1. Introduction

2.1. participants and study design, 2.2. measures, 2.2.1. demographics, 2.2.2. exposure variables, 2.2.3. mediating variables, 2.2.4. outcome variables, 2.3. statistical analyses, 3.1. descriptive statistics, 3.2. mediation analysis, 4. discussion, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• WHO. Mental Health of Adolescents. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health (accessed on 26 January 2024).
• United Nations Children’s Fund. The State of the World’s Children 2021: On My Mind—Promoting, Protecting and Caring for Children’s Mental Health ; UNICEF: New York, NY, USA, 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lawrence, K.C.; Adebowale, T.A. Adolescence Dropout Risk Predictors: Family Structure, Mental Health, and Self-esteem. J. Community Psychol. 2023 , 51 , 120–136. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pozuelo, J.R.; Desborough, L.; Stein, A.; Cipriani, A. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Depressive Symptoms and Risky Behaviors among Adolescents in Low-and Middle-Income Countries. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2022 , 61 , 255–276. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dragioti, E.; Radua, J.; Solmi, M.; Gosling, C.J.; Oliver, D.; Lascialfari, F.; Ahmed, M.; Cortese, S.; Estradé, A.; Arrondo, G. Impact of Mental Disorders on Clinical Outcomes of Physical Diseases: An Umbrella Review Assessing Population Attributable Fraction and Generalized Impact Fraction. World Psychiatry 2023 , 22 , 86–104. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Schlack, R.; Peerenboom, N.; Neuperdt, L.; Junker, S.; Beyer, A.-K. The Effects of Mental Health Problems in Childhood and Adolescence in Young Adults: Results of the KiGGS Cohort. J. Health Monit. 2021 , 6 , 3. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Thomas, P.A.; Williams-Farrelly, M.M.; Sauerteig, M.R.; Ferraro, K.F. Childhood Stressors, Relationship Quality, and Cognitive Health in Later Life. J. Gerontol. Ser. B 2022 , 77 , 1361–1371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xing, J.; Peng, M.; Deng, Z.; Chan, K.L.; Chang, Q.; Ho, R.T.H. The Prevalence of Bullying Victimization and Perpetration among the School-Aged Population in Chinese Communities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abus. 2023 , 24 , 3445–3460. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Longobardi, C.; Prino, L.E.; Fabris, M.A.; Settanni, M. School Violence in Two Mediterranean Countries: Italy and Albania. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2017 , 82 , 254–261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olweus, D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do ; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO. Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying ; UNICEF: Paris, France, 2019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Longobardi, C.; Prino, L.E.; Fabris, M.A.; Settanni, M. Violence in school: An investigation of physical, psychological, and sexual victimization reported by Italian adolescents. J. School Violence 2019 , 18 , 49–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zych, I.; Ttofi, M.M.; Farrington, D.P. Empathy and Callous–Unemotional Traits in Different Bullying Roles: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abus. 2019 , 20 , 3–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gong, Z.; Reinhardt, J.D.; Han, Z.; Ba, Z.; Lei, S. Associations between School Bullying and Anxiety in Children and Adolescents from an Ethnic Autonomous County in China. Psychiatry Res. 2022 , 314 , 114649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, X.; Qi, J.; Zhen, R. Bullying Victimization and Adolescents’ Social Anxiety: Roles of Shame and Self-Esteem. Child Indic. Res. 2021 , 14 , 769–781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ye, Z.; Wu, D.; He, X.; Ma, Q.; Peng, J.; Mao, G.; Feng, L.; Tong, Y. Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Bullying and Depressive Symptoms in Children and Adolescents. BMC Psychiatry 2023 , 23 , 215. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Cuesta, I.; Montesó-Curto, P.; Metzler Sawin, E.; Jiménez-Herrera, M.; Puig-Llobet, M.; Seabra, P.; Toussaint, L. Risk Factors for Teen Suicide and Bullying: An International Integrative Review. Int. J. Nurs. Pract. 2021 , 27 , e12930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Geoffroy, M.-C.; Arseneault, L.; Girard, A.; Ouellet-Morin, I.; Power, C. Association of Childhood Bullying Victimisation with Suicide Deaths: Findings from a 50-Year Nationwide Cohort Study. Psychol. Med. 2023 , 53 , 4152–4159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Okobi, O.E.; Egbujo, U.; Darke, J.; Odega, A.S.; Okereke, O.P.; Adisa, O.T.; Salawu, M.A.; Kimble, R.; Egbujo, U.C. Association of Bullying Victimization With Suicide Ideation and Attempt Among School-Going Adolescents in Post-Conflict Liberia: Findings From the Global School-Based Health Survey. Cureus 2023 , 15 , e40077. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fabris, M.A.; Badenes-Ribera, L.; Longobardi, C. Bullying Victimization and Muscle Dysmorphic Disorder in Italian Adolescents: The Mediating Role of Attachment to Peers. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2021 , 120 , 105720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Holt, M.K.; Vivolo-Kantor, A.M.; Polanin, J.R.; Holland, K.M.; DeGue, S.; Matjasko, J.L.; Wolfe, M.; Reid, G. Bullying and Suicidal Ideation and Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis. Pediatrics 2015 , 135 , e496–e509. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Serafini, G.; Aguglia, A.; Amerio, A.; Canepa, G.; Adavastro, G.; Conigliaro, C.; Nebbia, J.; Franchi, L.; Flouri, E.; Amore, M. The Relationship between Bullying Victimization and Perpetration and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury: A Systematic Review. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2023 , 54 , 154–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vergara, G.A.; Stewart, J.G.; Cosby, E.A.; Lincoln, S.H.; Auerbach, R.P. Non-Suicidal Self-Injury and Suicide in Depressed Adolescents: Impact of Peer Victimization and Bullying. J. Affect. Disord. 2019 , 245 , 744–749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Claes, L.; Luyckx, K.; Baetens, I.; Van de Ven, M.; Witteman, C. Bullying and Victimization, Depressive Mood, and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury in Adolescents: The Moderating Role of Parental Support. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015 , 24 , 3363–3371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Arnon, S.; Klomek, A.B.; Visoki, E.; Moore, T.M.; Argabright, S.T.; DiDomenico, G.E.; Benton, T.D.; Barzilay, R. Association of Cyberbullying Experiences and Perpetration with Suicidality in Early Adolescence. JAMA Netw. Open 2022 , 5 , e2218746. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Menken, M.S.; Isaiah, A.; Liang, H.; Rivera, P.R.; Cloak, C.C.; Reeves, G.; Lever, N.A.; Chang, L. Peer Victimization (Bullying) on Mental Health, Behavioral Problems, Cognition, and Academic Performance in Preadolescent Children in the ABCD Study. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 13 , 925727. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Serafini, G.; Pompili, M.; Borgwardt, S.; Houenou, J.; Geoffroy, P.A.; Jardri, R.; Girardi, P.; Amore, M. Brain Changes in Early-Onset Bipolar and Unipolar Depressive Disorders: A Systematic Review in Children and Adolescents. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2014 , 23 , 1023–1041. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Meszaros, G.; Horvath, L.O.; Balazs, J. Self-Injury and Externalizing Pathology: A Systematic Literature Review. BMC Psychiatry 2017 , 17 , 160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Moran, M.; Midgett, A.; Doumas, D.M.; Porchia, S.; Moody, S. A Mixed Method Evaluation of a Culturally Adapted, Brief, Bullying Bystander Intervention for Middle School Students. J. Child Adolesc. Couns. 2019 , 5 , 221–238. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazzone, A. Bystanders to Bullying: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Int. J. Bullying Prev. 2020 , 2 , 1–5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thornberg, R.; Tenenbaum, L.; Varjas, K.; Meyers, J.; Jungert, T.; Vanegas, G. Bystander Motivation in Bullying Incidents: To Intervene or Not to Intervene? West. J. Emerg. Med. 2012 , 13 , 247–252. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ng, K.; Niven, K.; Notelaers, G. Does Bystander Behavior Make a Difference? How Passive and Active Bystanders in the Group Moderate the Effects of Bullying Exposure. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2022 , 27 , 119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Konishi, C.; Hymel, S.; Wong, T.K.Y.; Waterhouse, T. School Climate and Bystander Responses to Bullying. Psychol. Sch. 2021 , 58 , 1557–1574. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Waasdorp, T.E.; Fu, R.; Clary, L.K.; Bradshaw, C.P. School Climate and Bullying Bystander Responses in Middle and High School. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2022 , 80 , 101412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deng, X.; Yang, J.; Wu, Y. Adolescent Empathy Influences Bystander Defending in School Bullying: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021 , 12 , 690898. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Obermann, M.-L. Moral Disengagement among Bystanders to School Bullying. J. Sch. Violence 2011 , 10 , 239–257. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van Erp, K.J.P.M.; Rispens, S.; Gevers, J.M.P.; Demerouti, E. When Bystanders Become Bothersome: The Negative Consequences of Bystander Conflict and the Moderating Role of Resilience. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2015 , 24 , 402–419. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lambe, L.J.; Hudson, C.C.; Craig, W.M.; Pepler, D.J. Does Defending Come with a Cost? Examining the Psychosocial Correlates of Defending Behaviour among Bystanders of Bullying in a Canadian Sample. Child Abuse Negl. 2017 , 65 , 112–123. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rivers, I.; Noret, N. Participant Roles in Bullying Behavior and Their Association with Thoughts of Ending One’s Life. Crisis 2010 , 3 , 143–148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rivers, I.; Noret, N. Potential Suicide Ideation and Its Association with Observing Bullying at School. J. Adolesc. Health 2013 , 53 , S32–S36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wu, W.-C.; Luu, S.; Luh, D.-L. Defending Behaviors, Bullying Roles, and Their Associations with Mental Health in Junior High School Students: A Population-Based Study. BMC Public Health 2016 , 16 , 1066. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Transactional Theory and Research on Emotions and Coping. Eur. J. Pers. 1987 , 1 , 141–169. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jerusalem, M.; Schwarzer, R. Self-Efficacy as a Resource Factor in Stress Appraisal Processes. In Self-Efficacy ; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 195–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977 , 84 , 191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Algorani, E.B.; Gupta, V. Coping Mechanisms. In StatPearls [Internet] ; StatPearls Publishing: Treasure Island, FL, USA, 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seiffge-Krenke, I.; Shulman, S. Coping Style in Adolescence: A Cross-Cultural Study. J. Cross. Cult. Psychol. 1990 , 21 , 351–377. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, X. On School Bullying and Mental Health in Adolescence: Perpetrator, Victim, Positive Bystander and Negative Bystander. A Narrative Review. Int. Healthc. Rev. 2024 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jex, S.M.; Bliese, P.D.; Buzzell, S.; Primeau, J. The Impact of Self-Efficacy on Stressor–Strain Relations: Coping Style as an Explanatory Mechanism. J. Appl. Psychol. 2001 , 86 , 401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Tan-Kristanto, S.; Kiropoulos, L.A. Resilience, Self-Efficacy, Coping Styles and Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms in Those Newly Diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. Psychol. Health Med. 2015 , 20 , 635–645. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pelekanakis, A.; Doré, I.; Sylvestre, M.-P.; Sabiston, C.M.; O’Loughlin, J. Mediation by Coping Style in the Association between Stressful Life Events and Depressive Symptoms in Young Adults. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2022 , 57 , 2401–2409. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seon, Y.; Smith-Adcock, S. School Belonging, Self-efficacy, and Meaning in Life as Mediators of Bullying Victimization and Subjective Well-being in Adolescents. Psychol. Sch. 2021 , 58 , 1753–1767. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, M.; Wolke, D.; Schneider, S.; Margraf, J. Bullying History and Mental Health in University Students: The Mediator Roles of Social Support, Personal Resilience, and Self-Efficacy. Front. Psychiatry 2020 , 10 , 960. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Duan, S.; Duan, Z.; Li, R.; Wilson, A.; Wang, Y.; Jia, Q.; Yang, Y.; Xia, M.; Wang, G.; Jin, T.; et al. Bullying Victimization, Bullying Witnessing, Bullying Perpetration and Suicide Risk among Adolescents: A Serial Mediation Analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2020 , 273 , 274–279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, H.; Wang, Y.; Wang, G.; Wilson, A.; Jin, T.; Zhu, L.; Yu, R.; Wang, S.; Yin, W.; Song, H. Structural Family Factors and Bullying at School: A Large Scale Investigation Based on a Chinese Adolescent Sample. BMC Public Health 2021 , 21 , 2249. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solberg, M.E.; Olweus, D. Prevalence Estimation of School Bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Aggress. Behav. 2003 , 29 , 239–268. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, G.; Gully, S.M.; Eden, D. Validation of a New General Self-Efficacy Scale. Organ. Res. Methods 2001 , 4 , 62–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zeng, G.; Fung, S.; Li, J.; Hussain, N.; Yu, P. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties and Factor Structure of the General Self-Efficacy Scale in China. Curr. Psychol. 2020 , 41 , 3970–3980. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jiang, Q.; Zhu, Y. Further study of trait coping style questionnaire. Chin. J. Behav. Med. Brain Sci. 1999 , 3 , 167–169. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shao, R.; He, P.; Ling, B.; Tan, L.; Xu, L.; Hou, Y.; Kong, L.; Yang, Y. Prevalence of Depression and Anxiety and Correlations between Depression, Anxiety, Family Functioning, Social Support and Coping Styles among Chinese Medical Students. BMC Psychol. 2020 , 8 , 38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B.W. The PHQ-9: Validity of a Brief Depression Severity Measure. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001 , 16 , 606–613. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, W.; Bian, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Li, X.; Wang, W.; Du, J.; Zhang, G.; Zhou, Q.; Zhao, M. Reliability and Validity of the Chinese Version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the General Population. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 2014 , 36 , 539–544. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.W.; Löwe, B. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006 , 166 , 1092–1097. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sheehan, D.V.; Lecrubier, Y.; Sheehan, K.H.; Amorim, P.; Janavs, J.; Weiller, E.; Hergueta, T.; Baker, R.; Dunbar, G.C. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The Development and Validation of a Structured Diagnostic Psychiatric Interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J. Clin. Psychiatry 1998 , 59 , 22–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, L.; Liu, Y.-H.; Zheng, Q.-W.; Xiang, Y.-T.; Duan, Y.; Wang, G.; Fang, Y.-R.; Lu, Z.; Yang, H.-C.; Hu, J. Suicide Risk in Major Affective Disorder: Results from a National Survey in China. J. Affect. Disord. 2014 , 155 , 174–179. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schneider, B.; Philipp, M.; Müller, M.J. Psychopathological Predictors of Suicide in Patients with Major Depression during a 5-Year Follow-Up. Eur. Psychiatry 2001 , 16 , 283–288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsai, P.-S.; Wang, S.-Y.; Wang, M.-Y.; Su, C.-T.; Yang, T.-T.; Huang, C.-J.; Fang, S.-C. Psychometric Evaluation of the Chinese Version of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (CPSQI) in Primary Insomnia and Control Subjects. Qual. Life Res. 2005 , 14 , 1943–1952. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Varghese, N.; Buergin, D.; Boonmann, C.; Stadler, C.; Schmid, M.; Eckert, A.; Unternaehrer, E. Interplay between Stress, Sleep, and BDNF in a High-Risk Sample of Young Adults. Sci. Rep. 2023 , 13 , 20524. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The Moderator–Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1986 , 51 , 1173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach ; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 146253466X. [ Google Scholar ]
• Antoniadou, N.; Kokkinos, C.M.; Markos, A. Development, Construct Validation and Measurement Invariance of the Greek Cyber-Bullying/Victimization Experiences Questionnaire (CBVEQ-G). Comput. Human Behav. 2016 , 65 , 380–390. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hutchinson, M. Exploring the Impact of Bullying on Young Bystanders. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 2012 , 28 , 425–442. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rivers, I.; Poteat, V.P.; Noret, N.; Ashurst, N. Observing Bullying at School: The Mental Health Implications of Witness Status. Sch. Psychol. Q. 2009 , 24 , 211. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Midgett, A.; Doumas, D.M. Witnessing Bullying at School: The Association between Being a Bystander and Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms. Sch. Ment. Health 2019 , 11 , 454–463. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janson, G.R.; Carney, J.V.; Hazler, R.J.; Oh, I. Bystanders’ Reactions to Witnessing Repetitive Abuse Experiences. J. Couns. Dev. 2009 , 87 , 319–326. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Evans, C.B.R.; Smokowski, P.R.; Rose, R.A.; Mercado, M.C.; Marshall, K.J. Cumulative Bullying Experiences, Adolescent Behavioral and Mental Health, and Academic Achievement: An Integrative Model of Perpetration, Victimization, and Bystander Behavior. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2019 , 28 , 2415–2428. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Janson, G.R.; Hazler, R.J. Trauma Reactions of Bystanders and Victims to Repetitive Abuse Experiences. Violence Vict. 2004 , 19 , 239–255. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Preventing Violence against Children ; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sawyer, M.G.; Pfeiffer, S.; Spence, S.H. Life Events, Coping and Depressive Symptoms among Young Adolescents: A One-Year Prospective Study. J. Affect. Disord. 2009 , 117 , 48–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sampasa-Kanyinga, H.; Roumeliotis, P.; Xu, H. Associations between Cyberbullying and School Bullying Victimization and Suicidal Ideation, Plans and Attempts among Canadian Schoolchildren. PLoS ONE 2014 , 9 , e102145. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Diamantopoulos, A.; Sarstedt, M.; Fuchs, C.; Wilczynski, P.; Kaiser, S. Guidelines for Choosing between Multi-Item and Single-Item Scales for Construct Measurement: A Predictive Validity Perspective. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012 , 40 , 434–449. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fuchs, C.; Diamantopoulos, A. Using Single-Item Measures for Construct Measurement in Management Research: Conceptual Issues and Application Guidelines. Die Betriebswirtschaft 2009 , 69 , 195. [ Google Scholar ]
• Franke, G.R.; Rapp, A.; Andzulis, J.M. Using Shortened Scales in Sales Research: Risks, Benefits, and Strategies. J. Pers. Sell. Sales Manag. 2013 , 33 , 319–328. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gogol, K.; Brunner, M.; Goetz, T.; Martin, R.; Ugen, S.; Keller, U.; Fischbach, A.; Preckel, F. “My Questionnaire Is Too Long!” The Assessments of Motivational-Affective Constructs with Three-Item and Single-Item Measures. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2014 , 39 , 188–205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rhee, S.; Lee, S.-Y.; Jung, S.-H. Ethnic Differences in Bullying Victimization and Psychological Distress: A Test of an Ecological Model. J. Adolesc. 2017 , 60 , 155–160. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vervoort, M.H.M.; Scholte, R.H.J.; Overbeek, G. Bullying and Victimization among Adolescents: The Role of Ethnicity and Ethnic Composition of School Class. J. Youth Adolesc. 2010 , 39 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jansen, P.W.; Mieloo, C.L.; Dommisse-van Berkel, A.; Verlinden, M.; van der Ende, J.; Stevens, G.; Verhulst, F.C.; Jansen, W.; Tiemeier, H. Bullying and Victimization among Young Elementary School Children: The Role of Child Ethnicity and Ethnic School Composition. Race Soc. Probl. 2016 , 8 , 271–280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ba, Z.; Han, Z.; Gong, Z.; Li, F.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, G. Ethnic Differences in Experiences of School Bullying in China. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2019 , 104 , 104402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Wang, X.; Shi, L.; Ding, Y.; Liu, B.; Chen, H.; Zhou, W.; Yu, R.; Zhang, P.; Huang, X.; Yang, Y.; et al. School Bullying, Bystander Behavior, and Mental Health among Adolescents: The Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Coping Styles. Healthcare 2024 , 12 , 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171738

Wang X, Shi L, Ding Y, Liu B, Chen H, Zhou W, Yu R, Zhang P, Huang X, Yang Y, et al. School Bullying, Bystander Behavior, and Mental Health among Adolescents: The Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Coping Styles. Healthcare . 2024; 12(17):1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171738

Wang, Xu, Leiyu Shi, Yunzhi Ding, Bowen Liu, Hongbao Chen, Wei Zhou, Renjie Yu, Peiyun Zhang, Xin Huang, Yong Yang, and et al. 2024. "School Bullying, Bystander Behavior, and Mental Health among Adolescents: The Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Coping Styles" Healthcare 12, no. 17: 1738. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12171738

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

School bullying as destructive communal coping of the school community

Affiliation.

• 1 Centre for Modern Childhood Studies, Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.
• PMID: 36507014
• PMCID: PMC9727086
• DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1021765

Keywords: communal coping; reasons of bullying; school bullying; school stress; theories of bullying.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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

Similar articles

• The victim-bully cycle of sexual minority school adolescents in China: prevalence and the association of mood problems and coping strategies. Wang Y, Yu H, Yang Y, Li R, Wilson A, Wang S, Drescher J, Chen R. Wang Y, et al. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020 Nov 6;29:e179. doi: 10.1017/S2045796020000918. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2020. PMID: 33153509 Free PMC article.
• Coping with COVID-19 at the community level: Testing the predictors and outcomes of communal coping. Kim Y, Tian X, Solomon DH. Kim Y, et al. J Community Psychol. 2022 Sep;50(7):2790-2807. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22797. Epub 2022 Jan 15. J Community Psychol. 2022. PMID: 35032396 Free PMC article.
• Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new victims of school bullying. Smith PK, Talamelli L, Cowie H, Naylor P, Chauhan P. Smith PK, et al. Br J Educ Psychol. 2004 Dec;74(Pt 4):565-81. doi: 10.1348/0007099042376427. Br J Educ Psychol. 2004. PMID: 15530202
• [Coping with stress caused by workplace bullying: umbrella review]. Warszewska-Makuch M. Warszewska-Makuch M. Med Pr. 2019 Apr 19;70(2):249-257. doi: 10.13075/mp.5893.00758. Epub 2019 Apr 16. Med Pr. 2019. PMID: 30994627 Review. Polish.
• Method of Nursing Interventions to Reduce the Incidence of Bullying and Its Impact on Students in School: A Scoping Review. Yosep I, Hikmat R, Mardhiyah A, Hazmi H, Hernawaty T. Yosep I, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Sep 22;10(10):1835. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10101835. Healthcare (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36292282 Free PMC article. Review.
• Afifi T., Basinger E. D., Kam J. (2020). The extended theoretical model of communal coping: understanding the properties and functionality of communal coping. J. Commun. 70, 424–446. 10.1093/joc/jqaa006 - DOI
• Afifi T. D., Hutchinson S., Krouse S. (2006). Toward a theoretical model of communal coping in postdivorce families and other naturally occurring groups. Commun. Theor. 16, 378–409. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00275.x - DOI
• Arseneault L. (2018). Annual research review: the persistent and pervasive impact of being bullied in childhood and adolescence: implications for policy and practice. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatr. 59, 405–421. 10.1111/jcpp.12841 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
• Bauman S., Menesini E., Colpin H. (2021). Teachers' responses to bullying: next steps for researchers. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 18, 965–974. 10.1080/17405629.2021.1954904 - DOI
• Boccanfuso C., Kuhfeld M. (2011). Multiple Responses, Promising Results: Evidence-Based, Nonpunitive Alternatives to Zero Tolerance. Research to Results. Washington, DC: Child Trends.

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• Frontiers Media SA
• PubMed Central

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Social Psychology

Age and Gender Differences and the Contribution of School Size and Type in the Prevalence of Bullying

• December 2021
• Voprosy Obrazovaniya/ Educational Studies Moscow

• National Research University Higher School of Economics

Discover the world's research

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

• A. V. Lapenko
• V. L. Nazarov
• N. V. Averbuch

• Nicole B. Dorio

• Elyse M. Doll

• Amanda B Siebecker
• Lynae A Johnsen-Frerichs

• AGGRESS VIOLENT BEH

• J SCHOOL HEALTH

• Ray M. Merrill
• David L. Vance

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