Bullying As A Social Experience

Bullying as a Social Experience

This page has been left blank intentionally


Social Factors, Prevention and Intervention
Todd Migliaccio and Juliana Raskauskas

California State University, Sacramento, USA
Todd Migliaccio and Juliana Raskauskas 2015

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Todd Migliaccio and Juliana Raskauskas have asserted their right under the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the authors of this work.
Published by
Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company
Wey Court East
110 Cherry Street
Union Road Suite 3-1
Farnham Burlington, VT 05401-3818
Surrey, GU9 7PT USA
England
www.ashgate.com
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:
Migliaccio, Todd.
Bullying as a social experience : social factors, prevention and intervention / by Todd
Migliaccio and Juliana Raskauskas.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4094-7010-6 (hardback)ISBN 978-1-4094-7011-3 (ebook)ISBN 9781-4094-7012-0 (epub) 1. Bullying in schoolsSocial aspects. 2. Bullying in schools
Prevention. 3. BullyingSocial aspects. 4. BullyingPrevention. I. Raskauskas,
Juliana. II. Title.
LB3013.3.M534 2015
371.58dc23
2015006529
ISBN: 9781409470106 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781409470113 (ebk PDF)
ISBN: 9781409470120 (ebk ePUB)
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited,

at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1HD
Contents
List of Data Boxes, Figures and Tables
vii
Acknowledgmentsix
1
Introduction: Social and Cultural Perspective
The Ecological Model and Power within the Social Experience
13
International Discussion of Bullying
31
Beyond the School Grounds and Back to Campus
47
Whole-School Approach
65
Being Different: The Key Factor in Bullying
89
Groups: Producers and Reproducers of a Bullying Culture
115
Everything You Thought You Already Knew About Bullying
133
References149
Index189
List of Data Boxes, Figures and Tables

Data Boxes
3.1
Where bullying occurs
36
4.1
What parents say
58
5.1
Bullying on the bus
86
6.1
6.2
6.3
Interaction of gender and school relationships

Difficulty of studying race/ethnicity
Students with special needs and bullying
98
105
110
7.1
7.2
Teacher focus groups

Bystander attitudes and responses
116
120
8.1
Comparison of characteristics by role in bullying
135
Figures
2.1
Ecological systems with feedback model
14
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
School environmental checklist

Map of school bullying points
Map of school bullying density
Classroom comparison of victim versus bystander bullying density
77
80
81
83
Tables
1.1
Percentage of students reporting different forms of bullying in one

sample6
3.1
International comparison of countries on proportion of children

bullied33
Where bullying occurs as reported by students
36
3.2
viii
4.1
Overlap of cyber bullying and bullying at school
51
5.1
Strategies identified in successful whole-school programs

(adapted from Pearce et al. 2011)
72
6.1
6.2
Interaction by gender and school relationships

List of racial/ethnic student identities
98
105
Acknowledgments
We want to acknowledge Lisa Ward, who edited our entire draft to help clarify
ideas and maintain consistency throughout.
We also would like to acknowledge Aya Ida-Kimura, Ph.D., a Professor of
Sociology at Sacramento State University, who offered insight concerning our
explanation of the integration of Symbolic Interaction into Systems Theory, and
Professor Mathew Schmidtlein, Ph.D., a Professor of Geography at Sacramento
State University who contributed to mapping data analysis discussed in Chapter 5.
Chapter 1

Bullying is one of the primary safety concerns of children and youth. It is defined
as unprovoked aggression intended to cause distress and discomfort to others
and is pervasive in schools throughout the world. Although bullying has been a
problem for centuries, it is only in the past 2030 years that it has become a topic
of scholarly investigation and concern, first in Scandinavia (Olweus 1977; 1978;
1993) and later in other parts of Europe and the world (see Jimerson et al. 2010;
Smith and Ananiadou 2003). Serious study of this phenomenon in the USA started
in the 1990s, motivated by a rash of school shootings and findings that indicated
that school shooters were all victimized by bullies at school (Vossekuil et al. 2002).
While school shootings brought the issue into the public view and shone a
spotlight on both victims who suffered in silence and those who bullied them,
school bullying is about more than individuals or isolated incidents. Bullies and
victims reside within layers of social influence. For example, bystanders who
witness the bullying, others in the school who hear about it, educators who are
tasked with responding to it, administration who set policy and punishment,
communities in which schools exist, society value of power and positionall
influence and are influenced by bullying. To fully engage with the issue of bullying,
a comprehensive analysis and discussion of social forces that influence bullying
must occur. Full comprehension of the complex social dynamics that produce and
reproduce bullying in a school allows for the creation of appropriate intervention
and prevention programs and structures.
This text will examine the social context of bullying, or how both macro and
micro social factors interact to produce and/or reproduce a bullying culture. We
draw on literature throughout the field to explicitly denote how and why social
forces are important in the evaluation of bullying, and how experiences may differ
as a result of socially diverse circumstances.
Definition of Bullying
Most people can identify when they are being bullied but stating a specific definition
that captures all forms and contexts is more difficult. It is important to establish
a shared understanding of what bullying is for pupils as well as for teachers
(Menesini et al. 2002: 403). Defining bullying has been an ongoing discussion that
has not led to a consensus among researchers regarding the definition, but there has
been agreement that bullying contains certain characteristics (Carrera et al. 2011).
The generally accepted components of bullying are behaviors that are (a) harmful
or done with intent to harm; (b) repeated or occur over time; and (c) characterized
by an imbalance of power, such that the victim does not feel he or she can stop the
interaction (Espelage and Swearer 2003). The power imbalance of bullying may
or may not be dependent on physical strength, potentially including personality,
social status, and/or number of bullies (Craig et al. 2000; Greene 2000).
In research, it is common to present a definition of bullying and then ask
students the frequency with which they have experienced it. Pre-determined
definitions are used to increase the reliability in comparing reports, but may result
in less valid claims about bullying rates due to the often vague and subjective
nature of bullying within a school (Naylor et al. 2006). On the other hand, allowing
students to utilize their own definition limits comparisons since definitions often
differ across groups, with some groups expressing a limited understanding based
on social experience (Ahmad and Smith 1990; Greene 2000; Menesini et al. 2002).
For example, Smith et al. (2002) found with 8 year olds who had been given a
definition of bullying and aggression, that they could differentiate aggressive and
non-aggressive interactions but could not discriminate between different forms of
bullying such as physical aggression, verbal aggression, or social exclusion, even
though these were all covered in the definition. Focusing on the types of bullying
over using an explicit definition can result in higher reported rates, but this may
over-estimate prevalence because it does not take into account the intent and
persistence parts of the definition (Olweus 2001; Vandebosch and Van Cleemput
2009). Ultimately, this may neither accurately identify the rate of bullying nor
allow for comparisons of rate to past research.
While students are less able to identify subtle forms or nuances of definitions
(Guerin and Hennessey 2002), they consistently identify higher rates of bullying
within their school than teachers do (Ahmad and Smith 1990; Naylor et al. 2006).
Students are able to recognize it when it occurs, which contrasts with teachers
who are aware of more explicit definitions but struggle to clearly translate that into
pragmatic experiences. Teachers are often unaware of such negative behavior
occurring among students (Cheng et al. 2011: 229), often focusing on those they
can explicitly witness (physical), while struggling to differentiate indirect forms
of bullying from childrens play (Hazler et al. 2001). Students self-identification
of bullying is more likely to be related to negative effects than others definitions
(Olweus and Limber 2010). Juvonen et al. (2001) assert that self-reports and peeror teacher-reports describe different aspects of the bullying experience (subjective
self-views vs. social reputation), with both methods providing useful information
in describing a students experience. While they complement one another, they are
not equivalent.
To respond to bullying, we believe an explicit definition needs to be identified,
reiterated in policy, and enforced in intervention. We choose in this book to rely on
the more common definition that entails three key components: Power, Intent and
Persistence. We feel these components present a definition that clearly articulates
the social relationship that exists and the social context that encapsulates the
intention of bullying. Still, we acknowledge that even this definition is not perfect,
as it reflects key social limitations, not only as a definition but in how bullying has
been studied.
Repeated Over Time
A primary issue of contention and concern in the definition is that the bullying is
repeated over time. Olweus (1993), who utilizes this component in his definition
(along with most other researchers) has identified that bullying can occur when
one individual is bullied in one instance (Ireland and Ireland 2003). Still, Olweus
(Olweus and Limber 2010) continues to use the aspect of repeated incidences
in research because it emphasizes that a social relationship exists between
the individuals, as opposed to simply counting bullying instances, as well as
differentiates bullying from single instances of rough play. The social dynamic of
bullying rests on the relationship between bully and victim, and, more importantly,
the culture in which the two interact. For example, bullying behavior by one
student over another in one instance may be defined as bullying because the
relationship that exists is the awareness that the victim, and likely others, have
concerning the behavior displayed by the bully in the past. The bully has power
within the community, as noted by others who witness or are involved in the
bullying. Awareness of past actions denotes an assumption of a bully performing
similar behaviors toward a potential victim. Simply, victims, as well as bystanders
are familiar with the bully, and more important, the bullys predilection toward
dominance (Craig et al. 2000; Greene 2000). Without the social awareness of the
other, it is difficult for a power imbalance to be established, much less exist during
and beyond a bullying event (discussed in detail below, and further in Chapter 2).
The inclusion of occurrence over time is to reduce vagaries that would occur if
the definition was noted as a relationship existing between individuals. Trying to
define what a relationship is would be more cumbersome and confusing, not to
mention trying to clarify all types of relationship that could exist.
Intent to Harm
Intent to harm is an important aspect of bullying, as it clearly identifies that bullies
do not accidentally engage in such acts. The component within the definition is
not, however, without controversy. Some argue that unintentional bullying can
occur in which the victim feels bullied by the actions of another, including the
actions of teachers (Sylvester 2010). In fact, when defining bullying, students
in Europe rarely reflected on intentionality when defining bullying (Guerin and
Hennessey 2002), focusing more on the impact that is expressed by the victim (see
Lease et al. 2002). Furthermore, most often bullies mentioned that bullying was
unintended behavior (Cheng et al. 2011: 229). While the experience for the victim
may be the same whether the bullying was intentional or not, the persistence of
the behavior would not likely occur without intent. If the act was unintentional,
the doer would likely refrain from future similar actions if confrontation was an
undesirable/unexpected outcome of her/his intentions. In this sense, the victim can

stop the behavior by informing and/or requesting the action to halt, challenging
an aspect of the definition that is generally agreed upon by researchers: power
differential (Naylor et al. 2006). If the perpetrator does not stop, then the action is
bullying, since future acts are being engaged in with intention, since the bully has
been informed of the impact that his or her behaviors are having (being informed
may include a negative response by a victim), and are choosing to persist in
producing the outcome. Continued aggressive behavior even after being informed
also denotes the inability of the victim to stop the action, and thus his or her lack
of power.
Including intent to do harm is essential because it identifies that the act of
bullying is the focus of the interaction. One quandary with intent is that it is not
always accurately attributed by the victim, bystander or adults (Salmivalli 2010).
Bullying intentions can be elusive (Cheng et al. 2011: 234). Students who have
experiences with aggression in the home or other experiences can over-attribute
negative intent to others behaviors (Newman et al. 2000; Pornari and Wood 2010).
Also, bullies often blame victims for negative interactions stating that they elicited
a hostile retaliation (Pornari and Wood 2010). Finally, indirect bullying such as
rumor spreading, teasing, and exclusion are easily argued away by bullies, saying,
for example, they took that the wrong way when both the bully and victim know
that it is part of an ongoing series of negative behaviors that the skilled bully
purposely keeps vague to outside evaluation. A student from a New Zealand study
(see later in the chapter for information on this study) once reported that she had
an incident where a group of girls was always talking about her negatively where
she could hear them, or giggling when she went past. One day she wore a new
dress and in every class period throughout the day one of the girls walked by her
and said Nice dress in a snide tone. At this point she asked the researcher with
frustration What was I supposed to do, tell the teacher they keep saying I have a
nice dress?! It was clear that both the bullies and victim knew the intent was to
harm but to an outsider the intent would be ambiguous.
The example identified in the above paragraph characterizes bullying from
a deviant and more individualistic perspective. The intent to harm denotes an
intentional act by the bullying student to have an impact. This is not to assume
that the bully consciously establishes the dynamics, while he or she intended to
bother or hurt the victim, the reason may not be clear even to the bully. Using
this reference characterizes the action as evil-minded behavior (Horton 2011:
269). This misidentifies the action as being solely about the aggression intended
or the harm imposed by a deviant individual (Davies 2011), when what is actually
occurring is an intention to control, dominate, or at least, assert power. It is a
socially prescribed pursuit of social goals, such as power.
Power
Power differential is one of the primary aspects that is generally agreed upon by
researchers and school personnel (Guerin and Hennessey 2002; Naylor et al. 2006)
that separates bullying from other forms of hostile aggression, but it is not without
contention. In fact, as noted above, power interacts with the other two components
to help distinguish them as aspects of bullying. It speaks to the relationship between
the aggressors and targets, raised in the over time discussion above, as the bully
has power over the victim. It also denotes an intention to reproduce this dominance
through the interaction, making power display the focus of the conflict. This limits
a resolution to the actions through mediation, which is why conflict resolution or
peer mediation do not work in addressing bullying (Flaspohler et al. 2009). These
methods focus on finding a compromise or common ground between the involved
parties which assumes equal status for negotiation. With the power discrepancy,
there is an absence of status equality. Since the intention is to display dominance
through intimidation, there is likely no common ground to be established.
Furthermore, the explanation above over-emphasizes the power of the
individuals involved and not the social power that exists within and is produced
through a group. The intention of bullying is to dominate in a public venue,
exhibiting power in the group (a more in-depth discussion of power and bullying
is presented in Chapter 2). Focusing on the individual fails to fully articulate the
group dynamic.
Finally, power is an abstract concept and often difficult to articulate. This is
why students are less likely to use power imbalance in their definitions of bullying
(Naylor et al. 2006), even though focus tends to be on physical power differential
(Guerin and Hennessey 2002; Madsen 1996). This may be a result of students
struggling with more abstract aspects of the definition, as can be seen when students
are asked to define bullying, they are more likely to identify explicit and direct
forms of bullying than they are indirect (Guerin and Hennessey 2002; Madsen
1996). Essentially power is socially constructed and difficult to ascertain. Still,
power is one of, if not the most important component of the bullying definition
that helps to determine when bullying occurs.
Forms of Bullying
While the definition is important for understanding and discussing bullying, it is
crucial to recognize that bullying may take many different forms. Included under
the umbrella of bullying is a broad spectrum of aggressive behaviors ranging from
nonverbal harassment such as stares and glares, cruel teasing, gossip spreading,
social ostracism/exclusion, sexual harassment, ethnic slurs, unreasonable
territorial bans, imprisonment, destruction of property, extortion, and physical
assault (Espelage and Swearer 2010; Olweus 2001; Ross 1996). Bullying can
be delivered face-to-face, indirectly through other people, or through the use of
technology (Crick and Rose 2001; Olweus 1993; Raskauskas and Stoltz 2007;
Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2009).
In our own data set taken from 1,759 USA students in grades 46 (912 years)
it was found that 44% had been bullied at least once in the past 3 months with
17% being bullied frequently (3 or more times a month). Table 1.1 shows the
breakdown of different forms of bullying; (please note that the numbers may
represent multiple occurrences of bullying and that students could select more
than one form of bullying that they may have experienced).
Table 1.1
Percentage of students reporting different forms of bullying in

one sample
Form of Bullying
Called mean names or teased
Left out or excluded
Hit, kicked, pushed, shoved
Stole or damaged property
Forced to do things
Race/ethnicity bullying
Disability related bullying
Percent of victims reporting

each form of bullying
41.5
24.5
22.6
10.7
11.8
24.8
10.4
These findings indicate that verbal bullying is most frequently reported followed
by exclusion and racial bullying. This is consistent with prior findings by other
researchers for this age group.
Bullying interactions tend to be categorized into either direct (e.g., physical or
verbal attacks) or indirect forms (e.g., spreading rumors or excluding someone).
The four main forms generally measured in the study of bullying are physical,
verbal, relational and cyber bullying. Physical bullying occurs when one or
more students bodily attack one of their peers or a peers belongings. Verbal
bullying involves insults or taunts such as teasing or name-calling (Espelage and
Swearer 2010; OMoore and Kirkham 2001; Olweus 2001). Relational bullying
or aggression is characterized by damaging of peer relationships, exclusion, and/
or manipulation of relationships (Crick and Grotpeter 1995; Underwood 2002).
Relational aggression includes psychological attacks such as humiliation, rumor
spreading, and damage to either self-esteem or social status (Underwood 2002). In
this type of bullying, there is often an interaction with other forms of bullying. For
example, physical bullying or verbal aggression can also occur during relational
aggression. Cyber bullying, while a growing form of bullying, is a slightly
different form, since its primary determinant is through the use of technology, and
not solely defined by the manner of the abuse, and engages one of the other forms
of bullying in its production.
Verbal aggression tends to have the highest rates of victimization, with

relational aggression and more overt forms of aggression following (Olweus
1993). Wang et al. (2009) found with a nationally representative sample of 7,182
US students in grades 610 that 20.8% reported physical victimization, 53.6%
verbal victimization, and 51.4% social victimization (like relational aggression)
at least once in the past 2 months; they also asked about cell phone (5.7%) and
computer/email/picture (8.1%) victimization.
Cyber bullying primarily makes use of relational and verbal modes of bullying
via spreading gossip, proliferating rumors, telling secrets, and exclusion, all of
which are forms of relational aggression. Sending insults or threats and referring
to the victim by mean names are forms of verbal bullying that can be perpetrated
using technology (Mishna et al. 2009; Tokunaga 2010). Some students even go
online and pretend to be the victim or pretend to be someone else to harass the
victim (Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2009). Vandebosch and Van Cleemput
(2009) add that a direct or physical form of cyber bullying could exist in the form
of destroying property like purposefully sending a virus- infected file, changing
passwords, or stealing or altering cell phones. Regardless of the appearance of
different forms of bullying within cyber bullying, Dempsey et al. (2009), in their
study of 1,665 middle school students in the US, concluded that cyber bullying
is a distinct form of bullying, as opposed to an extension of traditional forms
of bullying.
Prevalence of cyber bullying has been reported from 6%38% (Hinduja and
Patchin 2009). Rates of bullying can vary whether identifying it by definition
or by behaviors; for example, Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2009) found that
when asked if students had ever been actively or passively involved in bullying
via the internet or mobile phone, only 11.1% said they had been a victim, 18%
had been bullies, and 27.9% bystanders, but much higher numbers emerged when
identifying roles by behavior and experiences across the different forms (61.9%
victims, 52.5% bullies, and 76.3% bystanders).
Key Datasets
Throughout this book we will draw on two key datasets for examples. One of
the two datasets is from the United States (USA) and one is from New Zealand
(NZ). The datasets will be referred to as USA and NZ datasets when discussed
throughout the book. These two key studies are described in more detail below.
USA Dataset
The first dataset includes 1,675 students in grades 46 from 12 randomly selected
schools in a Central California district. Within this sample 49.1% were male and
50.9% were female and the grade breakdown showed that 33.2% were from 4th
grade, 34.6% 5th grade and 32.2% 6th grade. (Note that age was not reported by
students but students in 4th6th grade in the USA are generally 1012 years of
age). Students reported ethnicity based on all that apply resulting in the following
statistical breakdown: 57.2% Hispanic, 17.0% White/Caucasian, 14.5% Black/
African American, 9.3% Asian, 5.1% Native American, 1.6% Middle Eastern, 2.0%
Other. It is interesting to recognize that 13.1% of students selected 23 ethnicities,
i.e. multiracial/ethnic. A cluster sampling procedure was undertaken to make
sure that an equal number of schools were sampled that represented a diversity
of socio-economic backgrounds. To accomplish this, schools were hierarchically
ranked by the percentage of free and reduced lunches offered in the schools, with
higher percentages reflecting a lower socio-economic status in the community.
From this list, 1/3 of the schools came from the highest percentage, 1/3 from the
middle and 1/3 from the lowest groups. Groupings were determined by a clear
delineation in the rankings, with the lowest socio-economic group comprised of
free and reduced lunches at 70% and above, the middle group reflected a range of
3055%, and the highest socio-economic schools fit within a range of 20% or less.
Data were collected on bullying incidence, forms experienced, causal attributions,
number and characteristics of friends, connection to school and relationships with
school staff. Disability bullying as well as other special populations were included.
Information was also collected on sexual harassment, school policies, and the
effectiveness of prevention/intervention strategies. In addition to the above data,
442 students in grades 23 and 293 students in grades 712 completed surveys
with common bullying questions, including those from the Olweus questionnaire.
731 students also completed school maps where they indicated bullying hotspots.
Additional students and staff participated in one of 31 focus groups conducted in
middle and high schools to provide additional insight into bullying in schools and
needs for intervention. Parents of 1,044 students also completed a survey with
family characteristics and family connection to school in addressing bullying.1
The majority of examples will be drawn from the grades 46 data since it is the
most comparable to the NZ dataset.
NZ Dataset
The second dataset is from a study conducted in New Zealand2. The data from
1,759 students in NZ school years 56 are reported. Students ranged in age from
8 to 12 years (M = 9.65, SD = 0.69), with 49.9% being male and 50.1% female.
1The larger study this is taken from was gathered in 2010 by a research team
including the two authors plus: Scott Modell, Becky Penrod, and Jessica Heskin.
2The larger study in New Zealand was conducted in 2006 and included matched
pairs of schools using the Kia Kaha anti-bullying curriculum and those that had not. This
research was funded in part by the New Zealand Police Department and by funds from
Massey University Research Award (see Raskauskas 2006). In the native Mori language
kia kaha means to stand strong. The name is used to represent the need for the wholeschool community to stand strong to prevent bullying.
Cases from 40 schools across three Southern North Island regions were examined,
as well as one region on the top of the South Island. In New Zealand, schools
are divided into ten levels according to the decile bands of family affluence
and the socio-economic status of the surrounding community (school district).
In this dataset, effort was made to have schools from each of the decile bands:
Deciles 13 (22.6%), Deciles 46 (24.2%), Deciles 79 (36.1%) and Decile
10 (17.1%). Ethnicity was not reported. This dataset includes self-reporting on
bullying incidence, effectiveness of specific strategies, school connectivity,
different bullying behaviors, support seeking, response to bullying, teacherstrategies used, communication about bullying, policy characteristics and deciles/
community information.
Primary examples will be reported from the USA 46 and NZ 56 samples
since they are the most comprehensive on the topics discussed in this book and
have comparable items for bullying. Other sources from these datasets and smaller
datasets from other research conducted by the two authors will be used as needed.
When presented, other datasets will be described in more detail.
This Book
The purpose of this book is to look at the issue of bullying from a sociological
perspective. Bullying is often treated like a problem between two people but it
is actually much bigger than the dyad of bully-victim. Bystanders, school staff
and educators, school structure, and the layers of culture in which these all occur
work together to create an environment that is or is not supportive of bullying
behavior. This text will discuss both what research identifies as key social factors
contributing to bullying, as well as how those might be addressed to prevent
and intervene.
Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical framework for the book (a modified
Ecological Model) and how power interacts at every level to produce and reproduce
a bullying culture. The chapter will frame the discussion that will persist throughout
the book, articulating how social forces (e.g. culture, community, school factors,
social groups, common social factors) impact upon and influence bullying within
a school. In particular, this chapter will articulate the importance of power as a
central component of the social experience of bullying. While we explain how the
production of power occurs through interactions, we also show how power exists
at every level, all of which work together to influence a bullying culture.
Chapters 38 discuss different levels of influence in more detail: International,
Community, School, Group, and Individual factors. In each chapter we
contextualize past research on bullying from a social experience, articulating how
each level fits within the modified Ecological Model producing a bullying culture.
To highlight the points made in each chapter, we present our data from both New
Zealand and the United States. We also identify in each chapter key strategies for
intervention at that level of influence. While common themes exist throughout all
10
chapters, we focus within each chapter on a key issue relevant to the level within
the system.
For Chapter 3, a specific discussion of literature and findings throughout the
world will situate a full understanding of the extent of the issue, as well as the form
and rate of bullying and subsequent response to bullying that occurs within each
culture. To articulate how bullying is influenced at the country-level, we focus on
the distinction between collectivist versus individualistic cultures and how this
distinction impacts bullying dynamics.
Chapter 4 addresses the surrounding community, the cultural expectations and
their impact on bullying rates within a school. Within this chapter, we focus on
the notion that community is an important aspect in determining the existence of
a bullying culture, but not solely as a causal agent of aggression. The surrounding
community interacts with the school culture to produce a culture in which students
interact. We discuss specific community institutions (e.g., family, police), larger
social issues that comprise a community, such as poverty and social location
(e.g., rural, urban, suburban), and the more abstract cyber world, and how each is
related to bullying. We will also introduce community intervention and prevention
strategies that help to support anti-bullying programs within a school, such as the
online based Be Bold Project and It Gets Better Project.
Moving into smaller social dynamics, which the majority of previous research
has examined, we look at the school culture, social factors, small social groups
and the experiences of individuals within social environments. Each of these
discussion areas will allow us to cover the literature in relation to social dynamics,
while focusing more on key issues within that arena. For the school (Chapter 5),
we engage the culture of bullying within a school, the factors that contribute to
the culture and the impact of a Whole-School Approach to changing the culture of
a school. The discussion will involve both the entirety of the school and specific
issues within a school, such as policies and classroom management. We draw on
multiple data sets from both New Zealand and the United States, and not just the
primary data sets identified above, such as GIS analysis of bullying throughout a
school, as well as intervention programs.
A common area explored in past research pertains to how social factors
(Chapter 6) affect bullying within a school. Historically, the focus has been on
factors that increase bullying, such as the physical appearance of those involved,
gender differences, race (and racial groups within the school), and, in more recent
discussions, LGBTQ students and the increased likelihood of being bullied.
While important to consider such factors, the traditional focus has been on social
factors as causes of bullying, as opposed to the emphasis on differences among
students based on social factor determination, which is the position we undertake
in this chapter. Furthermore, we address the impact social factors have upon
experiences within bullying, as well as the creation of related intervention and
prevention programs.
Social groups (Chapter 7) are a primary aspect of the bullying experience as
they define bullying, determine acceptability of bullying, limit bullying, determine
11
access to power and ultimately define the interactions. The composition and
behavior of social groups involves a clearer description of the bullying process,
and the relationship a victim has with the group. A primary topic of discussion
will be the importance of social networks in reducing bullying, in particular,
bystander intervention.
The final chapter (8: Individuals) addresses the social context of bullying.
This chapter emphasizes the common discussion surrounding bullying, which is
the focus on the individuals who are involved in bullying. While much of the
discussion will be reviewing past literature, our emphasis will be on highlighting
how the individual experiences exist within social interactions, and ultimately
a larger culture. We highlight how focusing on the individual, as has been an
emphasis historically, is limited in responding to bullying. In doing so, we will
also present key factors that are important in any intervention/prevention program
and how it relates to the larger social context. This chapter draws together all of
the levels, connecting them to the stakeholders and how they can be involved in
changing the culture of a school.
Chapter 2
The Ecological Model and Power

within the Social Experience
Bullying is a social experience. Research shows that most, almost 85 percent, of
bullying occurs in front of other people (Atlas and Pepler 1998). Too often the
emphasis when responding to or preventing bullying is on the individuals involved
(Carrera et al. 2011; Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008). Solutions often focus on
socializing the bullies to more acceptable behaviors such as addressing their
limitations of self-control and empathy (Unnever and Cornell 2004), while others
focus on educating victims on how to respond to bullying (Hazler and Carney
2002; Howard et al. 2001; Ttofi et al. 2008; Whitted and Dupper 2005). Both are
important components of any intervention/prevention bullying program, however,
targeting only the individuals involved has limited impact (OConnell et al. 1999;
Swearer and Doll 2001). This is because the individual approach fails to address
the layers of social context that foster and support bullying. Bullying should not
be studied merely as a conflictual dyadic relationship between a bully and his or
her victim (Gini et al. 2008: 618).
Bullying is a social problem that has an impact upon all of those involved,
including the bystanders who witness the experience, the educators who deal
with the fallout from students less focused on their scholarship, the parents of the
kids who are being victimized, policy makers who struggle to define appropriate
and inappropriate behaviors in schools, and even the criminal justice system
that will have to deal with the children involved in bullying outside of school.
Regardless, taking into consideration everyone affected by a bullying event does
not fully address the social context in which a bullying incident occurs. Without
engagement with the social processes that foster bullying, programs that simply
draw attention to the phenomenon or punish those involved will not make lasting
change concerning bullying behavior throughout a school.
Ecological Model
One theoretical perspective that has been utilized in the study of bullying that
addresses the social context of bullying is the Ecological Model. This model
is based on the notion that events develop within nested systems that vary in
terms of how directly or indirectly they are related to the individuals in context
(Bronfenbrenner and Morris 2006). The Ecological Model is a specialized form
of systems theory that describes the complex of multiple factors that contribute
14
to or prevent specific behaviors (Orpinas and Horne 2006; Smith et al. 1997
Sizer, Norman, Hurley and Walker 1997). The model is usually conceptualized as
concentric circles, or layers that reflect direct and indirect effects on behavior (an
original representation of the figure is located in Espelage and Swearer 2010). The
most inner circle or core is the individual; the next layers encompass the influence
of close relationships like parents, peers, friends, and siblings interacting with
the child or with each other. The next layer is the parents work environment,
school structure/policies, and other organizations that can indirectly influence
behavior and cognition. The outer layers are the effects of culture and community
(Bronfenbrenner 1977; 1979). Each layer influences the social context and the
overall culture in the layers below it (identified through solid lines). For bullying,
this means the culture of bullying that exists within a school is a result of multiple
factors that exist on multiple levels, with the upper strata influencing the culture
and interactions on subsequent levels. We modify this perspective to reflect a more
socially interactional context by highlighting feedback loops that demonstrate the
potential impact of the smaller levels on the larger levels (see Figure 2.1 below).
In effect, the impact is not uni-directional within the system, but rather all levels
interact with one another. Systems are dynamic spheres of influence. Based on
this, we propose that these lower layers also feedback (dashed ovals) onto and
influence the higher levels, which means that social interactions among bullying
participants contribute to the persistence and/or changes in the larger culture.
Figure 2.1
Ecological systems with feedback model
This interaction component, which includes the general idea of the social
construction of meaning in the higher levels, is borrowed, in part, from Symbolic
Interaction. Symbolic Interactionism focuses on the negotiated construction
of meaning through social interactions (for a complete discussion of Symbolic
Interaction, see Charon 2009). Here we use Symbolic Interaction within the
Systems model to explain the production and reproduction of a bullying culture
at the lower levels (e.g., individual, dyad, small group), which influences and
maintains the culture at the larger levels (see Figure 2.1 above). Below is an
explanation of the key aspects of the paradigm that explain how interactions
15
among individuals promote the culture of bullying. The discussion, however, in no

way articulates all aspects or theoretical engagements of Symbolic Interactionism.
To begin, individuals interact with others based on their perspectives about
the world, which includes meanings of physical, social and abstract objects,
both conceptual and physical (Blumer 1969). The definition of the situation is an
individuals perception about an interaction, which includes the initial intention for
the interaction, the roles of each person involved and the behaviors to be used to
achieve the desired outcome. This perception guides the persons behaviors within
that interaction as the individual continually evaluates the encounter, including the
behaviors of others, to determine the appropriateness and/or acceptability of his
or her definition. It is, however, not solely that a person believes something and
then acts upon it; he or she must collaborate with others, which requires a shared
definition of what reality will be within the interaction, including the roles of all
associated (Mead 1934). This shared definition is not limited to the people directly
connected to the situation but also involves all of those observing the interaction.
Both those directly and indirectly involved are simultaneously engaging in the
process of action, evaluation and adjustment. The shared definition focuses the
interaction, which ultimately produces an understanding of meaning to be used in
this, as well as inform future interactions.
This description may be a little too abstract, so to help clarify let us apply
it more directly to bullying. To do so, it is easier to focus on the perspective of
the bully because it is most likely the bully who will initiate an interaction, at
least in a stereotypical bullying episode. First, the bully likely perceives of an
impending interaction as a means and/or process to establish status, power and/or
popularity. This is her or his impetus for engaging in the interaction (Mead 1934):
to produce power through the interaction. In order to establish him or herself as
powerful (discussed below), he or she would attempt to construct the situation
as a power expression and/or status determination, which he or she negotiates
with both the victim and bystanders, i.e. the audience (Goffman 1959). As the
situation progresses, the bully would constantly analyze the acceptability of the
definition, interpreting the responses (or lack thereof) of those involved, which
includes the willingness and/or ability of others (such as the victim) to challenge
or even change the definition of the situation.
While the potential victim may be less interested in engaging in an interaction
that is a performance of dominance, he or she does not often have the ability to
determine the existence of the interaction, meaning the victim is unable to stop
the bully (as discussed in Chapter 1 concerning the power aspect of the definition
of bullying). What likely occurs is that the victim accepts that the initiator is the
aggressor or bully, and the victim is not. Furthermore, the potential victim
would likely concur that the aggressor is attempting to dominate him or her,
struggling to alter this construct so that he or she does not end up as dominated,
and thus a victim for this and future interactions. If there is greater disagreement
over the accepted dynamics of the interaction, such as if the victim challenges
the power position of the bully, the negotiation may take longer. If this occurs,
16
the bully may utilize more aggressive means to establish dominance, while the
potential victim may be more assertive in challenging the socially constructed
interaction. This persists until the definition of the situation is agreed upon,
whether willingly or not by the participants, or until the interactions stops. For
situations in which participants mostly agree on the definition, then the negotiation
is shorter, with limited displays of aggression necessary from the bully. Simply,
if the culture of the school is accepting of bullying engagements, and if each
participant is an established bully and/or victim (this reflects the definitional
aspect of the existence of a social relationship, as discussed in Chapter 1), then the
definition of the situation will likely be more readily accepted by those involved,
even if the victim dislikes it.
It should be noted that while we as outsiders identify the situation as bullying,
the interactants likely do not always see it as such. Instead they may perceive
of the situation as power assertions, or worse, as normative interactions among
peers, with the bully being identified as the powerful person and the victim as
the dominated or in many situations as popular and deviant depending on
how the situation is defined among the actors. By not establishing the situation as
a bullying dynamic only helps to perpetuate future similar engagements, for the
interactions will be perceived as normal behaviors rather than deviant. Regardless,
situations can persist no matter what label is attached to them, as long as the
participants (bully(s), victim(s), bystander(s)) accept this dynamic as a common
or admissible means of interaction.
While we have described this from the individual perspectives, these
negotiations are all social, which is why the audience is so important to both
the theory and our use of it. The audience helps to determine the context, and
ultimately the definition of the interaction. By not intervening during an episode,
the bystanders define the situation as acceptable, which has implications for future
interactions, along with helping to define the larger culture. Furthermore, by
observers not responding, or worse, by joining in, the bully sees her or himself
as engaging in a behavior that is socially acceptable, i.e. confirming his or her
definition of the situation.
This is another aspect of our perspective that draws from an area of the
Symbolic Interactionist perspective. Individuals within the interaction understand
the acceptability of their behaviors through the response of others within the
interaction. If bystanders do not respond, then the bully may not see his or her action
as wrong. In fact, it can be seen as a justification of his or her perspective because
no one has informed her or him otherwise. This process of evaluating oneself
through the actions of others is called the Looking Glass Self (Cooley 1922),
which postulates that people assess their perception of a situation, in particular
how they are perceived in the interaction by analyzing the behaviors of others
as a reflection of how the others see them. Essentially, through interactions we
evaluate the acceptance of our behaviors (and thus the definition of the situation,
which includes our self-presentation), by interpreting the behaviors of those in
attendance. If the bystanders do not respond, then the bully sees the behaviors as
17
socially acceptable and their position as an accurate performance of how he or

she sees her or himself. This includes how a bully evaluates the victims response.
If the victim cannot, or will not stop or challenge the power display by the bully,
then the bully may see this as a justification of his or her previous perception of
power and dominance over the victim, and ultimately in the school. Again, this
is not to claim the bullying behavior is accepted or right, as most bystanders do
not challenge a bully out of fear, but rather how the aggressors may interpret the
lack of action as a statement of acceptance. A bully may just as likely see the
inaction as fear, which he or she can still interpret as a validation of his or her role
as an important and ultimately powerful person. Even when someone challenges
the bully, remember, this perspective about power and dominance derives from
previous interactions experienced by the bully, so he or she may be aware that is a
struggle for power but that to be successful one needs to persist.
While we have described the process of the interaction that produces bullying,
we utilize Symbolic Interactionism to explain how interactions among stakeholders,
such as those described above, work to promote and/or challenge the culture of
a school. It is through these interactions that status, position and definitions of
acceptable behavior are established among students, which then construct the
culture in which these stakeholders exist. This increases the likelihood of similar
future interactions because of the success of the previous engagements. Bullies, as
well as all individuals involved in an exchange determine the appropriateness of
their definitions of interactions, including who they see themselves and all others
as being by interpreting the behaviors of the others involved. This produces, for not
just bullies but all who are aware of the events that such interactions are part of the
culture and that the role they have performed is an acceptable one, which increases
the likelihood of future such behaviors by these individuals, and likely others.
The Symbolic Interaction perspective has historically been left out of the
larger discussion of the Ecological Model. The behaviors between students
define and redefine the culture in which the interaction exists. If students accept
bullying, either by not reacting, much less challenging a bullying episode, or
worse contributing to the bullying, then they are perpetuating the bullying culture
that exists in the school. In contrast, when students challenge a bully, they are
attempting to produce a culture that does not accept bullying, which may, if the
culture that presently exists is one that has allowed for bullying in the past, to
challenge the cultural standpoint. This is where the independence of each level
exists, for, as explained through Symbolic Interaction, individuals are agents of
change, creating meaning through their interactions, not merely passive recipients
of cultural determinations and values (Musolf 2003). Still, even as stakeholders
modify the normative behaviors that have existed within a school, the culture will
not likely change without transformations at multiple levels. So while Symbolic
Interaction explains the importance of social interactions on the continuance, as
well as potential changes to the larger culture, the individuals and their interactions
reside within the larger system, which is, as Systems Theory explains, that all
strata together produce and maintain the culture of a school.
18
One example of multiple layers contributing to the effects of bullying would

be the relationship between the mediating factors of school/classroom climate and
connection to school. Connection to school has been defined as how a student
experiences a sense of caring from those in the setting, perceives closeness to
teachers, the social activities available in the school, and their evaluation of
the overall support of the school environment (Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wilson
2004). Connectivity is also influenced by social environmental factors, including
cleanliness of the school (Mortimore 1995; Wilcox et al. 2006). In relation to
bullying, school connectedness directly influences involvement in bullying
(Raskauskas 2006; Wilson 2004), as it is associated with less bullying and more
pro-social behavior (Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wilson 2004). It is also an indirect
mitigating factor concerning the impact bullying has on academics, for the more
connected a student is to school, the less effect bullying has on a students education
(Eisenberg et al. 2003). The level of school connection expressed by students in
a school is largely predicted by the climate of the school as a learning and/or
work environment. A school or classroom climate that reinforces bullies behavior
results in a lower connection to school among students and, as a result, an even
greater frequency of bullying. On the other hand, a school or classroom culture
that supports and defends victims leads to more connection and less bullying, both
in the classroom and potentially throughout the school (Raskauskas et al. 2010;
Salmivalli 2010).
Ecological Model researchers address the influence of the social context
in which bullying occurs (Espelage and Swearer 2003; Swearer et al. 2006),
identifying the multiple factors (personal and social) that contribute to bullying
(Swearer et al. 2009). Still, much of the research falls somewhat short in
attending to larger social and cultural factors. Despite the efforts of the socialecological model to shift the focus from the individual to the context, this has
largely been construed in terms of microsystems (school, family, neighborhood)
rather than macrosystems (Carrera et al. 2011: 489). While the comprehensive
and extremely important edited text by Espelage and Swearer (2010), Bullying
in American Schools, presented the varied aspects of the Ecological Model, the
research presented is written from the standpoint of educational psychology and
the larger social contexts discussed are peer groups, the school climate, and teacher
attitudes. This is not to critique the book by Espelage and Swearer, which is an
important contribution to not only understanding but responding to bullying, but
it does not engage the larger social context. What we are attempting to articulate,
instead, is that a text that approaches the problem of bullying from a sociological
perspective, taking into account larger cultural influences like country culture,
community factors, gender and ethnicity, as well as school culture, peer groups,
and individuals is sorely needed.
19
Power and Position

Power and social position are sociological themes that pervade the different
levels of the ecological model and help to distinguish bullying from other forms
of violence. It is also a primary component of a sociological perspective of
bullying. While power is discussed throughout the book, it is important to first
explain the key aspects of power in relation to bullying. We, again, draw from the
theoretical paradigm of Symbolic Interactionism to help explain power in bullying
interactions, as well as how it perpetuates a bullying culture.
Power can be due to physical or social strength or position, or can even be
due to technological ability such as with cyber bullying (Hinduja and Patchin
2009). Regardless of the origins, power and social status need to be addressed for
a complete understanding of bullying, especially when designing an intervention
program, for power and status are central to the existence and continuance of
bullying in a school.
Power and Bullying
Power derives from multiple sources. While power within a school has been
assumed to stem from the authority of the institution, and be enacted through
policies and laws that dictate the expectations of all stakeholders, this more formal
type of power is not the only type of power that operates in schools (Hallett
2007: 167). There is informal power that functions throughout a school when
policies are not clear, or are not being upheld by the representatives of the school
(e.g., administration, faculty, staff) (Dennis and Martin 2005).
As discussed in Chapter 1, bullying is defined as a social relationship between
victim and bully(s). Within this relationship, power is a primary component.
Bullying occurs when one has power over another, limiting a victims ability to
impede the bullying (Espelage and Swearer 2010). Even more explicit, bullying
is about expressing power, as the interest to obtain or retain power is a driving
force for displaying dominance over another person. Most believe bullying is
about displaying power over one individual, but that oversimplifies the context of
the interaction. Previous studies have identified victims as more isolated, socially
awkward, physically different (potentially smaller), and as less likely to have
friends around them who can shield them from abuse (Pellegrini and Long 2002).
Often as a result of these factors, a bully designates a potential victim because he or
she assumes the individual is weaker, whether physically, socially, or intellectually,
and thus visibly perceived as less powerful than the bully (Card et al. 2005). If the
victim is already marginalized, there is less assistance for them to receive from
other students (Mouttapa et al. 2004; Pellegrini and Long 2002; Pellegrini 2001),
and on some occasions, even from teachers (Doll et al. 2003; Flaspohler et al.
2009 Sink and Birchmeier 2009). Simply, many victims are already recognized
as having less power by the bully, bystanders, and potentially even by the victim
themselves, even before bullying occurs.
20
Focusing on the power exerted over one individual fails to acknowledge that
the show of dominance does not typically occur in private, as bullies most often
dominate a victim in front of others (Atlas and Pepler 1998; Salmivalli and Peets
2009b). The importance of mistreating a student who is already perceived as less
powerful in a public venue is to display the power held by the bully (or bullies) over
others and what they are willing to do to retain it. The presence of an audience is
essential in bullying (Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008: 340). The bullying creates
a sense of fear among the group members, and ultimately a culture in which those
who use aggressive acts are perceived as powerful. This usually spawns bystanders
who are afraid to take action. The lack of response by bystanders condones the
behavior, which supports the power of the bullies. Ultimately, the bully is able to
display to others in the culture that he or she has power without fear of having that
power and dominance questioned because the victim is unable and the bystanders
are unwilling. Bullying is less about an expression of the power over a victim as
it is a demonstration of power within, and more so, over the larger group, who are
indirectly controlled by the threat of aggression. Salmivalli (2010) points out that
those in the group who witness bullying are trapped in a social dilemma:
On the one hand, they understand that bullying is wrong and they would like
to do something to stop iton the other hand, they strive to secure their own
status and safety in the peer group. However, if fewer children rewarded and
reinforced the bully, and if the group refused to assign high status for those who
bully, an important reward for bullying others would be lost. (117)
Popularity
Bullying, and the power through bullying are socially constructed, but this does
not identify who is able to bully, or more relevant, who is allowed by the group to
get away with bullying. First, not all students bully others, even if they have the
power to do so. Second, not all students who engage in bullying behavior would be
able to dominate others (Schwartz et al. 2005). Most believe bullies are tough kids
who are marginalized in the school and are seeking connection through bullying.
This stereotype of bullies is a more accurate description of what has been labeled
as bully-victims, or students who are both victimized and bully others. Bullyvictims, however, do not represent all bullies, much less all victims (although
bully-victims are more like victims than bullies) (Dukes et al. 2009).
Bully-victims are a specific group of students who are the most likely to suffer
from suicidal ideation, depression, absenteeism, etc. (Edmondson and Zeman
2011; Holt et al. 2007a). They are marginalized, have low popularity and status
in the culture, and are often easily identified by teachers as potential aggressors,
or at least, difficult students (Schwartz et al. 2005). By being marginalized, they
are unable to change their status in the peer group or build social skills and this
produces a cycle of ostracization. Many bully-victims learn over time that power
assertion methods work to gain resources. While they are tapping into the culture
21
of fear that is allowed by all stakeholders in the school, because of their limited
social power and status they are the students most likely to be identified as being
bullies (Schwartz et al. 2005). While there is the threat of retaliation for telling
on bully-victims, the strength of the threat is limited because the bully-victim has
limited status in the community. As a result, these kids are more likely to be in
trouble, and thus either drop out or are expelled from school.
Bullies, in contrast, are generally accepted in the culture, displaying average to
high popularity (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Thunfors and Cornell 2008), which
is a primary determinant of status within a school (Adler and Adler 1998). Overall,
popularity is determined by the students within the school, who generally agree on
who is popular (Caravita and Cillessen 2012), just as they can consistently identify
those who are not popular (Olweus and Limber 2010).
Popularity can be divided into two distinct forms: Sociometric popularity, or
likeability/actual popularity, (Newcomb and Bukowski 1993), and Sociological
popularity, or perceived popularity (Rodkin and Farmer 2000). There has, however,
been shown to be a level of correlation between the two (Lease et al. 2002),
meaning students can be both actually and perceived as popular. Determination
of popularity within each area differs. Actual popularity is determined by student
likeability (or lack of likeability) (Newcomb and Bukowski 1993), while perceived
popularity is students being recognized as socially dominant and savvy, but not
well-liked (Adler and Adler 1998).
While there are distinct differences within each determination of popularity,
which affect the experiences of bullying, there are some similarities that exist
across groups, including for students who are both perceived and actual (Lease et
al. 2002). In particular, both groups of popular students tend to display higher selfconfidence, while less popular students in both determinations were identified as
being passive and socially withdrawn, and often labeled as immature (Adler and
Adler 1998; Newcomb and Bukowski 1993). In relation to aggression, among both
forms of popularity there was a general acceptance of self-defense and justified
forms of aggression, while emotionally charged and uncontrolled aggression was
unpopular (Adler and Adler 1998; Coie and Dodge 1998). Justified aggression,
however, is a somewhat vague notion and can be used to legitimize bullying
among students. This includes identifying the potential for aggression by another
student as a reason for bullying that same student (Bunk et al. 2011; Edmondson
and Zeman 2011). For students perceived as popular, this may mean justifying
their maltreatment of other students by victim blaming (Gini et al. 2008). This
relates back to the definition and the intention to harm, as bullies may express (and
to some degree believe) their interaction is to help the victim by informing them
of their incorrect behaviors.
Focusing on the use of aggression offers a key difference between the types
of popular students. Pro-active aggression (including relational aggression) is
considered unacceptable for actual popularity, but is commonly displayed by
perceived popular students (Adler and Adler 1998; Coie and Dodge 1998; Lease et
22
al. 2002). For those students who were both actually and perceived to be popular,
they were not likely to bully or use forms of social aggression (Lease et al. 2002).
Considering that students who bully often display average to high popularity
(Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Thunfors and Cornell 2008), this helps to identify
that while bullies are perceived as being popular, they are not necessarily liked
by their peers. Perceivedas-popular students attain popularity through displays
of desired attributes that are important within the school culture, while actually
popular students are identified through their friendly demeanor and social
sensitivity and awareness (Parkhurst and Hopmeyer 1998; Rubin and Hastings
1998), and genuinely liked by their peers.
To determine which attributes or skills are important for perceived-as-popular
students to achieve status in a school that allows them to engage in bullying
behavior but not be challenged for it (unlike bully-victims), one must first be
aware that different cultures characterize popularity, or status, as a result of
displayed attributes. In more traditional cultures, status is given to those based on
historically established divisions. Therefore, in a culture such as that of India that
has much more clearly defined class structure based on historical determination,
higher status is given to those who exist within one class level and not another. In
a more collectivist culture, while status would not seem to be a component of the
interactions, it does exist in some form and is likely given to those who best represent
the larger culture. For example, in China those who excel as representatives of the
nation are often given greater status, such as Olympic athletes. Status in the United
States is largely determined by those who are perceived as being individually
successful. In the larger culture, this often equates with money, but can also relate
to other factors, such as fame (Milner 2010).
In a school culture, status, or popularity (Adler and Adler 1998) is most
commonly determined by success in activities that are deemed as being valuable
in the culture. Sports are recognized as an important arena for success (especially
for boys), and those who excel are attributed more popularity (Messner 1992). For
females, power is often housed in attractiveness and access to material possessions
(Adler and Adler 1998; Duncan and Owens 2011; Haas and Gregory 2005).
Furthermore, what is important for adolescents might be different for children, as
the ability to attract boys may carry less weight among younger girls (Caravita and
Cillessen 2012). Regardless, what exists is a culture that gives status to specific
groups of students because of their skills or behaviors. Some of these students
then utilize their popularity to enact control over the group, who, recognizing the
dominant social standing in the culture, acquiesce to the perceived-as-popular
students definition of the situation rather than challenge it. The power of
perceived popular children to determine the membership of the in crowd further
underscores their influence over the dynamics and climate of the peer group
(Lease et al. 2002: 106).
23
Interaction and Power

Access to power is not solely decided by cultural determinants. Power is
simultaneously a social concept that is linked to people and a process that occurs
through interactions, existing outside of the individual (Dennis and Martin 2005;
Hallett 2007). While power is reflected by what is important in the larger culture,
individuals do not have power unless acknowledged by others. Access to power
resides in the hands of those within the social interaction to bestow upon an
individual. While athletic ability for boys is a recognized important attribute within
schools, power is not automatically received upon winning a game, but rather power
is conferred upon the student because the group has determined that this students
athletic achievement warrants the status and popularity. If a students success
was deemed a result of luck, then they would not receive the same recognition
as one who had been identified as being skilled. For example, in Thornes (1993)
discussion of gender and power among students, one boy was recognized by the
other children as being popular as he was the most athletic and accomplished in
sports. It was not because he declared it, but rather the recognition by his peers
of his actions and their subsequent reactions to him identified his power. As a
result, his decisions were generally accepted in the culture, even when he chose
to engage in behaviors that appeared in contrast to more masculine expectations.
Such high status boys are shown to be able to withstand peer pressure and have
greater impact on intervening when they witness bullying than other boys (Cowie
1998). Regardless, power does not exist within an individual but within the group,
who attribute that power to others (and thus can also deny it).
Power, however, is not reflected through explicit statements made by others but
by their reactions and/or behaviors within the interaction. Power is produced and
reproduced through relations. When a bully dominates another student, supportive
behaviors of the bullying event identify the power of the bully. Even when
bystanders refrain from responding, they are not only condoning the behavior but
their actions (or lack thereof) are displays of recognition of the acceptance of
power displayed by the bully.
Having been ascribed power in the group, it is then more accepting for the
individual to use that power, as bullies do, through aggressive behavior. Individuals
recognized as being powerful are then able to define the context of the interaction,
and have greater control over the process of an engagement (Mills 1956). In a
bullying situation, those whose power is recognized through interactions get to
define the situation. Whoever has power has considerable power to control
how people in that situation act (Hewitt and Shulman 2010: 171). Essentially
those who have more power, have greater impact on the context of what behavior is
acceptable, and how power is obtained. Those who have power are able to frame
actions, situations, and events in ways that induce compliance and constitute the
social order (Hallett 2007: 149). The bullying behavior expressed by perceivedas-popular students then becomes a defining characteristic in the school, producing
and sustaining a culture of violence.
24
The intention of bullying then is to express power to the group, either to

gain power or to maintain it (Edmondson and Zeman 2011), and ultimately to
get the group to accept/acknowledge that power. To not have ones social status
accepted, and ultimately ones power, would mean little to no compliance from
others (Hallett 2007). The more widely power displays by a bully are accepted
throughout a school, the more power the individual then holds, enabling him or
her to further define situations and interactions.
Bullying to obtain power is not relegated only to displays for the general school
populace. Such experiences are also common within small groups, especially
when a student feels that his or her status is being threatened, often from within
the group (Edmondson and Zeman 2011). This in-group bullying can occur when
a student feels a member of the group (or tangentially affiliated individual) is
becoming more popular than he or she. In response the threatened student may
start a rumor or ridicule the friend publicly in an effort to secure his or her status
and instill fear in the group members (not just the one whose status was on the
rise), i.e. relational aggression (Simmons 2003).
Essentially, the power display is similar through all forms of bullying but
the initial intention or directive may differ. Regardless, the outcome remains the
same: the others in the group often join in with the bullying because of the fear of
experiencing the ire of the bully, while simultaneously displaying their connection
to the power (i.e. the perceived-as-powerful person). The sad aspect of this is that
all experiences of bullying would be reduced dramatically if bystanders did not
join in, or even better, denounced the acts (Polanin et al. 2012). This response
would signal a lack of acceptance of bullying, and thus deny the power that is
being accessed through bullying.
Bullies achieve greater power in the culture as they engage in bullying behavior
(Cheng et al. 2011). This exponentially elevates their status, as more students
connect with them, often out of fear of becoming a victim, solidifying their role
and status within the culture. It also justifies the limited power and marginalized
status of victims (Caravita and Cillessen 2012; Thunfors and Cornell 2008). Over
time, these roles become more crystallized, limiting the possibility of changing
the status and power of those involved (Evans and Eder 1993; Merton 1996). The
perceptions about roles are even more entrenched since negative attitudes about
bullying decrease over time (Boulton 1999), as do perceptions about victims,
meaning bystanders are more likely to blame victims for their situation (Gini et
al. 2008).
Power and Teachers
While power is established through interactions between students, the culture that
determines the context of these social interactions is not limited to the students
and their expectations. The persistence of power through bullying is established,
in part, by the actions of the school, administration, staff and faculty. In fact, such
powerful groups through their actions and responses, convey the importance of
25
anti-bullying actions and the denial of power through bullying since they play
a substantial role in the development and reinforcement of bullying behavior
(Hilton et al. 2010: 420). For example, teachers have a tremendous impact on
younger students as they learn about bullying. Giving power to students through
leadership roles in the classroom can work to justify the assumed power by the
child among other students (Doll et al. 2003; Hanish et al. 2003). Continually
relying on one student for such leadership positions gives power to the child
because the teacher is the authority in the classroom. It also identifies to the child
that they deserve the power and if they do not receive it, they should demand it.
Bullying is an option for doing so. Cheng, et al. found in their study of Taiwanese
secondary students that bullies often used their social power that was established
through numerous factors, including being class activity leader or using teachers
authority, to bully the positional inferior (2011: 262). Furthermore, not responding
to bullying by school representatives condones the behaviors (at all ages), because
a lack of action is seen by students as supporting bullying (or at least not caring if
it occurs) (Garbarino and DeLara 2002). Bullying then is exemplified as a primary
aspect of the school culture that can help one to achieve power and status.
Power displays throughout a school define the culture of the school and
whether bullying will persist. What should be acknowledged is that bullying is
social, deriving from social experiences and expectations. Bullying is entrenched
in a culture and community that promotes it. It is influenced by a number of social
factors and reproduced through the interactions throughout a school, all in the
pursuit and display of power and status. Without consideration of this context, it is
difficult to be clear about the entirety of what bullying entails.
Social Contexts
Examining bullying from a social perspective allows us to consider multiple social
contexts, or social strata for bullying and how they may affect and/or change the
bullying experience. Below is a brief introduction to the key areas that influence
the culture of bullying and how power influences bullying within the identified
context. Borrowing from the Ecological Model, each factor introduces a layer that
influences the next layer, as well as increasing the probability of bullying. While
each social context will be discussed in greater depth in subsequent chapters,
below we introduce how power may be conceived within each strata.
International Factors
The largest arc of the Social Ecological Model is the macrosystem which includes
international differences in culture, cultural norms, and values. This outer most
shell is a key influencing factor of the inner shells, including which values and/or
skills define popularity and ultimately power within a culture. Cultural or national
factors, such as norms, values, policies and laws, influence bullying starting
26
with the language we use to discuss it (Smith et al., 2002), how it is defined/
conceptualized, and how the social groups function to maintain it.
National differences in bullying can be illustrated by labels used to identify
bullying and the seriousness of offense perceived by the larger community. For
example, the term mobbing, which focuses on a group using aggression to drive
away an undesired individual, is used in both Norway (Heinemann 1973) and
Germany (Niedl 1996); violencia, which is used in Spain, specifically defines
bullying as physical violence, implying it a serious but individual event. Ijime
is the term used in Japan and expressly refers to harassment related to nonconformity to group norms or group sanctioned exclusion (Furukawa et al. 2012;
Hyangsook 2002; Smith et al. 2002). In the United States, bullying is used, which
focuses on personal action against one from another individual or a small group
of individuals, with an assumption often made by outsiders that aggressors are
unpopular or antisocial (an assumption that is often not founded). The differential
use of terminology highlights how the interaction between power and status can
differ across cultures.
Similarly, the strength of group control differs cross countries. Collective
cultures, like Japan, and individualistic cultures like the USA differ in the strength
of group control. Social exclusion then carries a much greater threat to a student,
which is a prominent component of ijime. Students who are bullied in Japan tend
to assume responsibility for the bullying, largely because individuals from more
dominant positions are the most common aggressors (Morita et al. 1999). Simply,
the cultural emphasis on group cohesion not only influences what bullying will
entail but also who is at greater risk. It also perpetuates bullying since victims are
not likely to seek assistance (Hilton et al. 2010), since they often feel shame for
being ostracized (Furukawa et al. 2012). In contrast, in western cultures power
is determined through individualized successes and achievements (Markus and
Kitayama 1991). These often exist through displays of dominance or aggression
(Woods 2009), emphasizing individual power in the culture. Victims are often
students who display less individualized successes, and thus less power in the
society, and thus bystanders do not feel a lot of responsibility to become involved
or take action to stop the interaction. (DeLara 2012; Macklem 2003). Simply,
power is defined by the cultural values of a nation, values which determine who is
more likely to be bullied and to bully.
Community Factors
Similar to national values, community factors can contribute to bullying at a
school by the dynamics of the surrounding culture such as attitudes about equity,
social mobility, and schooling (Chaux et al. 2009; Farmer et al. 2011; Timm and
Eskell-Blokland 2011). Communities that accept behaviors that support bullying
can increase school bullying often through the values that determine power within
the culture. This also means that the surrounding community can define value in
27
whether bullying occurs by supporting those who are often relegated to lower
status positions.
Of late, the focus in research has been the impact community partners can have
on reducing bullying (Bacchini et al. 2009). It is important to incorporate dealings
with community institutions into conceptual frameworks and interventions (Timm
and Eskell-Blokland 2011: 341). For example, martial arts training for victims and
bullies have been shown to reduce the likelihood of future bullying (Twemlow
et al. 2008). Community groups (e.g. PFLAG, GSA) have been heavily involved
in raising awareness and addressing bullying among the LGBTQ community
(Mahan et al. 2006). This includes the establishment of programs such as It Gets
Better (Muller 2011). Other programs have developed working relationships with
the police to help address bullying (de Wet 2007); including the criminal justice
system in bullying intervention and other higher levels of violence can reduce
bullying (Jennings et al. 2011). With the rise of cyber bullying, it becomes even
more important to engage the larger community in addressing bullying, such as law
enforcement (Stewart and Fritsch 2011). Social network websites who have agreed
to shut down webpages that promote bullying are another example. All of these
programs work to support individuals who are bullied, or empowering victims to
counteract the power differential being reproduced through acts of bullying.
School Factors
While society and community define the values that determine power, as well as the
means for the pursuit of power, there are common experiences throughout schools
that perpetuate bullying (Espelage and Swearer 2010; Finley 2003; Olweus 1993).
Confronting power displays throughout a school means changing the culture of
the school. The whole-school approach has been shown to be the most effective
prevention effort for any schools (Hazler and Carney 2002; Packman et al. 2005;
Rigby et al. 2004), provided that there is a strong commitment and willingness
to work together on the part of all those involved. This means all stakeholders
(school personnel, other professionals, parents, and students) (Olweus 1993; Ross
2003) must be committed and willing to work together as they engage all aspects
of a school (e.g., policies, practices, school environment, classroom management,
student interactions, behavior management among students/staff) in order to have a
significant impact on bullying (Allen 2010; Vreeman and Carroll 2007). In relation
to power, the school organizes and supports the representatives of power, such
as staff (policy enforcement) and students (group power) who, in coordination
with all changes, challenge the power dynamics throughout a school. Without this
collaborative response, power determination is left to informal means determined
by students (Dennis and Martin 2005).
28
Social Factors
Social factors such as gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation have been found to
have an impact on bullying, but focusing on them as single variables fails to address
the social context of such factors. Identification of social factors and their impact
on the experiences of bullying can help to inform intervention and prevention
strategies, however, it also limits awareness about the issues and ultimately the
ability to respond (Carrera et al. 2011). Even more important, such discussion and
analysis of social factors, including the notion of difference as a cause (Hamarus
and Kaikkonen 2008), overlooks the larger context of power. Being different does
not cause a person to be bullied, even if the larger community has identified that
difference as being inappropriate. Social factors are justifications for bullying, and
to engage them outside of the social perspective fails to fully address the larger
issue, responding instead to symptoms of the social problem. Social factors help
students to define who has power and in what context but they do not automatically
result in bullying. They are symbols of who has the power in the society and how
they have obtained, or received the power. While culturally determined, it is the
performance of these social engagements that perpetuates power differentials.
Social Group Factors
While each level of the system influences the power dynamics and bullying
experience, the power determination is displayed through groups (Joronen et al.
2012; Salmivalli 2010). The display by the bully(ies), the response by the victim
and the subsequent reactions of bystanders all define where power resides and
through what means. If the group supports the bullying, including if they do
nothing, then power is acknowledged as residing in those who engage in bullying
behaviors, in particular, individuals who are willing to engage in such behaviors.
In contrast, if the group questions the actions of the bully, then power resides in the
group, denouncing dominance displays as expressions of power.
The power to dominate also can reside in the social relationship between the
victim and bully(ies). As discussed in Chapter 1, one of the primary components
of bullying is that a relationship exists between the bully and the victim so that
power can be enacted through the bullying episode. While relevant to all bullying
episodes, it is even more relevant for relational aggression, as they are largely
determined by the relationship between the individuals (Neal 2009). While gossip
and exclusion can persist among people who have weaker ties, it is more effective
when ties are stronger since closer friends have greater knowledge of one another
(Grotpeter and Crick 1996). More important, wanting to maintain the relationship
allows for the power to persist (Hodges et al. 1999).
This is largely why relational aggression is often accompanied (or followed)
by attempts to draw the victim back into the group (Simmons 2003). Once the
victim completely removes him/herself from the group, or no longer desires to be
affiliated with the group, much of the power is lost. The group no longer has the
29
primary resource that can be used against the victim. This does not mean bullying
disappears, but rather that the ability to bully is limited because of the restricted
contact with the individual. Still, with the rise of cyber bullying, it has become
easier to continue bullying, expanding relational aggression to an out-group
context. Often this means involving (or at least informing) others in the larger
culture that bullying the victim is occurring.
Individual Factors
Although the focus of this book is the larger context that influences bullying,
to say that the characteristics of individuals do not factor into bullying would
be untrue. While we have presented that power derives from groups and not
individuals, it is the individual who must be educated on how to respond, as well
as the power he or she can express in each interaction. In effect, individuals can
become aware that most bystanders do not agree with bullying but are afraid
to act. In a sense, there is power among the individuals who do not condone
bullying (Salmivalli 2010).
Power discussions among individuals are not limited to raising their awareness
of their roles in reducing bullying by connecting with other like-minded students.
There are factors that increase the likelihood of a child becoming a bully that
are affiliated with power, including aggression, limited empathy for others, lower
self-control and, of course, a desire for power and dominance. There are also
factors that limit some students access to power, which can make children easier
targets for bullies. These include inferior social competence, lower self-esteem
and limited emotional regulation skills. The research in this area, however, is
largely correlational, so directional relationships cannot be inferred. Some of the
characteristics of groups may be protective factors, risk factors, moderating or
mediating factors or outcomes/effects of involvement in bullying. What is relevant
is that certain characteristics of a student are linked to a specific role. Furthermore,
even though these characteristics are affiliated with an individual, they are socially
derived, meaning the society or community determines whether the characteristics
increase or decrease the access to power of a student. Similarly, it means that
social responses can limit the influence these factors have. For example, students
who are victimized may be more likely to suffer from depression or suicidal
ideation (Arseneault et al. 2006; Juvonen et al. 2006), but the impact differs as a
result of other social factors, such as familial relations (Holt et al. 2009; Sullivan
et al. 2004), peer relations inside and outside of school (Flaspohler et al. 2009) or
even connectivity to school (Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wilson 2004). Considering
individual experiences as one aspect of power reflection that contributes to
bullying allows for a more comprehensive response to bullying, as the individual
experience exist in a social world.
30
Conclusion
Bullying is larger than just the relationship between bully and victim. That
relationship is embedded within layers of social forces that create the culture that
generates the opportunity for bullying to occur. These social forces work together
to produce, and reproduce a bullying culture by defining and maintaining paths to
power among students. Therefore, it is important to consider these layers, both in
comprehension of bullying and the development of prevention or intervention for
bullying, and how power exists throughout the entirety of the system.
Chapter 3

The largest arc of the Social Ecological Model is the macrosystem which includes
international differences in culture, cultural norms and values. This distal
outermost shell influences all of the layers below. But we need to be careful not
to simply assume that different nations automatically produce different levels or
types of bullying. The first large international study on bullying (TMR) brought
together 14 countries to collaborate on a common study (Smith et al. 2002). The
main difficulty in this research was establishing a common method since the
terms used for bullying in each country differed in meaning. For example, the
English term bullying scores high on physical and verbal aggression, moderately
high on social exclusion while the term prepotenza used in Italy scores higher
on physical aggression but lower on non-physical bullying types (Smith et al.
2004). The different terms used in nations may explain rate differences between
countries, for example seemingly high rates of bullying in Italy may be partly
explained by the fact that the term includes all types of physical aggression and
not just what other countries consider bullying (Smorti et al. 2003). Therefore
the TMR study to compare national rates of bullying helped to identify that prior
investigations (Richard et al.) have been limited by definitions of behaviors
associated with bullying.
While the defining terminology is important, so is the culture in which it exists,
which is really what influences the dynamics of bullying. But before presenting
this cultural discussion, it is important to clarify that when considering our
feedback model, there is the potential that changes at the lower layers, such as in
interactions or the school can impact the cultural dynamics at the outermost shell,
but this change would take an extended period of time to bring about such large
scale change. The potential, however, exists based on Symbolic Interactionism
(Charon 2009). What is relevant to the perspective is that bullying that exists
at lower levels are not simply determined by international cultural dynamics.
Instead, there is a feedback loop based on the bullying dynamics at all other levels
that justifies and perpetuates the cultural attitudes that produce the dynamics of
bullying in a culture. The cultural attitudes that produce bullying at each level can
only persist as long as they are enacted at the lower levels. Yes, that does mean that
if each school in a country changed the cultural dynamics surrounding bullying
then the culture of that country would change. When we consider bullying at a
larger societal level, this must be understood.
While it may not change much of what we discuss at this level, it is relevant
for understanding the relationship between findings at each system level, with the
cultural values towards aggression influencing the nature of the bullying problem
32
a nation faces, which then, by engaging in bullying behavior (or not doing so)
substantiates the cultural attitudes of the nation.
Individualistic-Collectivist Orientation
Hofstede (1980; 1991) identified dimensions by which cultures around the world
differedone of the most researched dimensions is collectivism-individualism
orientation. Under this orientation Colombia, India, Taiwan, South Korea,
China, India, Indonesia and Japan are examples of countries that score high on
collectivism, while the USA, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, and the UK
score high on individualism orientation (Bowker et al. 2012; Nesdale and Naito
2005). These values influence factors that determine status and popularity, as
discussed in Chapter 2.
Collectivist cultures tend to emphasize the collective with values that encourage
interdependence, cohesion, and harmony (Yamaguchi 2001). Citizens strongly
identifying with in-group memberships such as families, schools and companies
and these group memberships and roles tend to be a major part of ones personal
identity. The in-group/out-group distinction is important where people show longterm loyalty to their in-group by placing group interests before individual interests
and expects protection from the in-group as needed (Hofstede 1991; Oyserman
et al. 2002). Bullying in collectivist cultures tend to focus more on maintaining
the group status quo, utilizing more relational forms of aggression such as rumor
spreading about the individual or their family or social isolation. One hallmark of
bullying in collectivist cultures is that they tend to have more bullies than victims.
For example, Koo et al. (2014) found in South Korea that each class was most
likely to have 12 victims but that 78% of the sample reported 310 students
were bullying them per class (another 8% were bullied by 2030 students in the
class). It is not uncommon for an entire classroom of students to single out and
collectively bully 24 individuals within the same class. This establishes a group
norm that supports the expression of aggression against these individuals and
discourages coming to their defense.
Individualistic cultures, on the other hand, tend to value independence,
autonomy, and high self-esteem (Triandis et al. 1990). Citizens see themselves as
distinct individuals with individual characteristics and often competing agendas
(Hofstede 1980; Hofstede 1991). Behavior and interpersonal relationships are
largely regulated by individual preferences and cost-benefit analyses rather than
group goals or expectations (Oyserman et al. 2002; Triandis et al. 1990). In contrast
to collectivist cultures, in individualistic cultures there tend to be more victims
than bullies and the forms of bullying most typically used are direct verbal or
physical aggression, relying on relational aggression to establish a position within
the group (Salmivalli 2010).
Comparing individualistic and collectivist cultures have not shown major
differences in prevalence of bullying, despite different forms being used. Research
33
from the World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative study comparing 28

countries on the Health Behavior in School-age Children (HBSC) research shows
higher rates of bullying for Lithuania, Latvia, Greenland, and Russian Federation
and lower for Sweden, Ireland, Scotland, Slovak Republic, and England among
students 1115 years old (Due et al. 2005; Diderichsen, Gahbain, et al. 2005).
Table 3.1, using data from their study, reveals that proportions of children bullied
varied by both gender and country.
Table 3.1
International comparison of countries on proportion of

children bullied
Countrya
Proportion of students bullieda,b

Boys
Lithuania
Greenland
Latvia
Russian
Federation
Israel
Portugal
Greece
41.4
34.3
29.9
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Switzerland
Belgium
Austria
France
Hungary
Canada
Czech Republic
Poland
USA
Norway
Wales
Finland
Northern Ireland
Scotland
Rep. of Ireland
England
31.3
26.0
24.6
22.1
22.7
19.8
17.5
16.7
17.0
15.2
15.6
16.0
15.3
12.0
12.5
10.7
9.3
11.0
9.1
25.3
25.9
23.8
12.4
Average
across genders
Girls
Collectivist Culturesc
38.2
39.80
33.8
34.05
28.4
29.15
24.2
24.75
16.3
21.10
13.7
18.75
8.1
10.25
Individualistic Cultures
26.0
28.65
24.2
25.10
21.5
23.05
19.6
20.85
18.8
20.75
14.7
17.25
16.2
16.85
13.7
15.20
12.3
14.65
13.2
14.20
12.3
13.95
11.3
13.65
10.6
12.95
11.3
11.65
9.2
10.85
8.7
9.70
9.5
9.40
7.4
9.20
7.2
8.15
Relative rank
1
2
3
6
8
11
22
4
5
7
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
34
Countrya
Slovak Republic
Sweden

Proportion of students bullieda,b
Boys
9.4
6.3
Girls
5.5
5.1
Average
across genders
Relative rank
7.45
5.70
27
28
(a) Proportion data reported in Due, P., Holstein, B.E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain,
S.N., Scheidt, P. Currie, C., and the Health Behaviour in School-Age Children Bullying
Working Group (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-age children: International
comparative cross sectional study in 28 countries. European Journal of Public Health,
15(2), 128132. Copyright: The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on
behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/eurpub/
cki105. This international cross-sectional survey included 123,227 students 11, 13 and 15
years of age from a nationally representative sample of schools in 28 countries in Europe
and North America in 199798.
(b) Proportion of students who selected sometimes and weekly for frequency of
being bullied.
(c) Identification of collectivist vs. individualistic cultures based on Psychology.wikia.com/
wiki/Collectivist_and_Individualist_cultures.
Table 3.1 shows that collectivist countries included were among the highest rates
of bullying.
The frequency of bullying was examined for the USA and NZ samples
specifically for this book, each of which represents one of the country groups:
USA is higher on individualistic and NZ on collectivist (see Data Box 3.1 below).
For the USA sample of grades 46, 44% of students had been bullied in the past 3
months, 12.1% once a week or more. In the NZ sample years 56 63% had been
bullied with 13.5% more than once a week in the past 3 months. These findings
indicate that more students in New Zealand reported more bullying although the
percentage reporting frequent victimization was relatively consistent. The fact
that more children in NZ reported being bullied is consistent with expectations
about the more collectivist oriented cultures reporting more bullying. However,
this may also be a cultural difference about willingness to report or awareness of
bullying. NZ Children were asked to select the characteristics that make an action
bullying and the majority correctly endorsed them: hurts someone (94%), done on
purpose (74%), repeated (67%), it is hard to make bullies stop (80%), and bullies
have control or power over other kids (53%). This is likely why NZ children were
more likely to identify that they experienced any bullying, compared to children
in the United States, who the majority identified that they had not been bullied
at all (56%). However, it is difficult to separate the true prevalence from cultural
differences in willingness to report or talk about bullying that has occurred, since
those in individualistic cultures may be more open to talking about themselves
and their own experiences (Harel-Fisch et al. 2011; McEachern et al. 2005; Yum
and Hara 2005). For example, in Japan younger students dont discuss being
bullied with peers and often refuse to report bullying to teachers because they fear
35
retaliation by the aggressor or feel ashamed. Older students believe that bullying
is a private problem and that others shouldnt get involved (Hilton et al. 2010).
Students from the USA, on the other hand, are more willing to talk about bullying
with friends or parents, though they are also reluctant to report bullying to school
staff. Their reluctance to report is not due to concern about their position in the
group or how others view them, but instead often from a concern of escalating the
attack from the aggressor or lack of confidence in the ability of teachers and school
staff to handle the problem appropriately (Macklem 2003).
While perceptions about experiences differ across different cultures, there
tends to be more deviation within the collectivist and individualistic groups than
between. For example, Whitney and Smith (1993) sampled 6,758 students (aged
816 years) in 24 schools in Sheffield, UK. These researchers used a modified
Olweus bullying questionnaire and results revealed that 27% of the elementary
and middle school sample reported being bullied sometimes and 10% indicated
it happened at least once a week. In Dublin, Ireland, the Olweus self-report
questionnaire was administered in four schools to 783 students between the
ages of 7 and 13. Ten percent admitted to being involved in bullying behavior
as either bullies or victims (OMoore and Hillery 1989). Ortega (1992), using
a Spanish translation of the Olweus questionnaire, and working in cooperation
with Smith at the University of Sheffield, surveyed 859 children (aged 1116)
at five schools in southern Spain. Twenty-five percent of the students surveyed
reported bullying their peers on a regular basis. Despite these variations, large
scale studies of bullying consistently identify 1015% of the student population as
frequent victims of bullying and most at risk for negative effects (Due et al. 2007;
McEachern et al. 2005; Olweus 1993; Raskauskas 2013).
Between group differences may be due to differences in attitudes about
aggression and the extent to which bullying prevention has been taken up as a
national issue. Different countries are also at different places in terms of bullying
prevention efforts with some countries like Norway, England, and Finland having
widespread or national efforts against bullying, others like Australia, Canada,
or USA where efforts differ by state, county, or school, and other countries that
are relatively new to bullying prevention like India or Mexico. This acceptance
of aggression is often related to their identification with a history synonymous
with aggressionfor example the USA emphasis on cowboys or manifest
destiny, Japans identification with the Samurai or Shogun, or the New Zealand
incorporation of the warrior history of the native Mori may reduce the societal
responsiveness. The degree to which the country accepts aggression as a reasonable
solution to problems is related to the degree to which you see tolerance of violence
within the society, neighborhood and home. The aggression acceptance in one
culture has been shown to impact other cultures when transported through media.
When Papua New Guinea, a traditionally rape free society, saw an increase in
the engagement with Western media, there was a subsequent increase in the rates
of sexual assaults in the culture (Sanday 1996). Aggression in the larger culture
that is accessed through media and neighborhood or home models of aggressive
36
Data Box 3.1Where bullying occurs

What bullying looks like and where it occurs is likely to differ based on the physical
environment and cultural context.
Our two example samples were used to examine differences between the USA
sample and NZ sample in where it occurred. The table below represents the percentage
of participants who had been victims of bullying and where they reported bullying
occurred. Victims could select all that apply.
Table 3.2Where bullying occurs as reported by students

Where have you been
bullied
Classroom
Playground/play yard
Bathrooms
Hallways
School Bus
Way to/from School
Lunchroom/Cafeteria
USA 46
(n = 432) (%)
27.6
75.6
13.0
10.4
2.1
10.4
15.7
NZ 56
(n = 1089) (%)
54.3
80.7
16.0
24.2
16.7
24.1
n/a
The percentages of victims attacked are pretty consistent across the two cultures with
a few exceptions. For both, the playground or play yard was identified most. The
classroom was also a key place however more so for the NZ sample. The third largest
place for NZ students was hallways where this was low for USA children, most likely
because the USA sample was taken from California who uses more of an open campus
design for schools such that most elementary schools do not have enclosed hallways.
Similarly, the USA sample identified the Cafeteria or lunchroom as a key place. No NZ
students identified this and that was because most primary schools in NZ do not have
lunch rooms; they eat their lunches in the classroom or on the play yard. On the way
to/from school bullying differences may represent the fact that many NZ students walk
to their school which is situated in a small and safe community while fewer students
in the USA walk and are more likely to be driven by parents or by bus from a larger
surrounding community area to school.
Ultimately these numbers indicate that construction of the physical environment,
which is dictated by the cultural and specifically the cultures view of children and the
role of school, will dictate where bullying will occur the most. These numbers imply
that time with less supervision, such as on the playground or play yard is where much
of bullying will occur. However, they also show NZs view of children as active agents
and classrooms based more on exploration and social constructivism which allows NZ
students spend more time in social interaction and not directly supervised by adults
which may provide more opportunities for bullying especially in the classroom.
37
behavior have been linked with bullying behavior (Baldry and Farrington 2000;
Carroll-Lind et al. 2011; Finkelhor et al. 2005). In Thailand, it was found with
1,440 students aged 713 years that children who bullied were more likely to have
suffered physical abuse in the home and to prefer violent media (Laeheem et al.
2009). It is generally accepted that bullies have higher acceptance of aggression
as an acceptable problem-solving technique, tolerance of aggression within the
peer group, and a home background with less affection, more violence, and low
parental monitoring (Olweus 1993; Raskauskas 2013; Smith et al. 2004).
Case of Japan vs. West
While there is no evidence that collectivist-individualistic countries differ on
prevalence of bullying, they have been found to differ on most prevalent forms
and effects of bullying and nature of bullying. For example, relational aggression,
as compared to overt aggression, may be considered more of a threat in collectivist
cultures since they value interconnectedness more. For example, in Western
nations relational aggressive individuals tend to be rated as more popular than
overt aggressive individuals (Smith et al. 2010), but in India relational aggression
is negatively related to popularity after controlling for overt aggression (Bowker
et al. 2012).
The differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures in regard to
popularity may be due, at least in part, to differences in goal orientation. Students
in individualistic cultures tend to have an agentic orientation which refers to goals
aimed at achieving power, status, or influence in relationships (discussed more in
Chapter 6). The agentic orientation tends to be associated with higher levels of
aggression and lower levels of pro-social behavior (Ojanen et al. 2005). Communal
orientated cultures, on the other hand, tend to encompass goals aimed at achieving
and maintaining relationships and the status quo of the group. It was once assumed
that communal goals would suppress bullying because it emphasizes group
connectivity, but instead, a collectivist focus encourages bullying related to group
conformity and cohesion (Caravita and Cillessen 2012). This is because communal
goals are based on the group social norms. If the collective norms focus is on the
aggression toward a few, or mobbing as it was originally termed, those affiliated
will engage in that behavior. In this way, perceived popularity will differ based
on the displays of explicit vs. implicit power (Koo et al. 2014). In individualistic
cultures the common expression of explicit power, often through direct bullying, is
associated with higher perceived popularity, at least until middle school (Caravita
and Cillessen 2012; Ojanen et al. 2005). This allows the individual to display
dominance over others, using peer-valued skills and/or abilities to emphasize their
success, and ultimately popularity. Collectivist cultures tend to rely on displays of
implicit power in bullying situations for the intention is not to reference the bully
(or bullies) as having more power or being more popular, but rather to articulate
the lack of status of the victim. While there are still peer-valued characteristics that
denote status in collectivist cultures, they are used to highlight who does not fit
38
within the norm. In a sense, in collectivist cultures those who bully are not thought
of as popular so much as those who are bullied are unpopular.
A meta-analysis conducted by Oyserman et al. (2002) revealed that Americans
and Australians were both higher in individualism and lower in collectivism
than were Japanese. Most research that has been conducted examining how the
individualistic-collectivist orientation may be related to bullying has compared
Japan (collectivism) vs. individualistic countries (USA, UK, Greece, and
Australia). The findings from these studies will be discussed as a case study of
how the larger cultural orientation may be related to bullying.
The definition of bullying commonly used in the USA equates bullying with
aggressive behavior between children, presumably unprovoked (Harachi et
al. 1999). Ijime is the word used in Japan for bullying and is defined as a type
of aggressive behavior where someone in a dominant position within a groupinteraction, by intentional or collective acts, cause mental and/or physical
suffering to another inside a group (Hilton et al. 2010; Morita 1985). Ijime in
Japan is similar to USA bullying with two subtle differences: (1) ijime is more
weighted towards verbal and indirect aggression with the aim to cause emotional
rather than physical suffering, (2) ijime takes place within a group, typically with
the same grade, with the perpetrator typically a dominant member and the victim
a lower ranking member of the same group (Morita et al. 1999). Therefore, some
behaviors considered bullying in the USA like a bully beating up a victim would
only be considered ijime if the behavior was intended to also humiliate or insult
the victim (Nesdale and Naito 2005).
Socio-historical development of bullying in a country is contextual, focusing
comprehension of the issue, and the subsequent research and eventual response.
For example, ijime has been studied in Japan for a significantly longer period of
time than bullying has been studied in the USA. Ijime was identified as a major
national issue in Japan because of suicides associated with it. In 1984, seven
elementary and lower secondary school students committed suicide in response
to ijime and another nine students committed ijime-related suicide the following
year. At the time, Japanese officials believed that ijime was unique to Japan and
researchers conducted dozens of national studies in an attempt to understand the
problem (Hilton et al. 2010). However, another group of ijime-related suicides
19931995 sparked a second wave of research that continues today (Hilton et al.
2010; Morita et al. 1999). The landmark Monbusho study of ijime in Japan was
conducted in 1994 with 9,420 students in elementary, lower secondary, and upper
secondary schools, and the study included the students parents and their teachers
(n = 557). At that time, 22% of Japanese elementary school students reported
that they were victims of ijime and 26% of the students reported that they did the
victimizing (cited in Hilton et al. 2010).
While research on bullying in Europe started much earlier, research in bullying
in the USA wasnt common until the 1990s and not widespread until the 2000s. In
the USA bullying was not recognized as a national problem until a rash of mass
school shootings where shooters were allegedly victims of bullying (Klein 2012;
39
Vossekuil et al. 2002), including the highly publicized shootings in Jonesboro,

Arkansas (1998), Springfield, Oregon (1998), Littleton, Colorado (1999), and
Santee, CA (2001) across which 24 were killed and 68 wounded. In the first large
scale study conducted in the United States, Nansel et al. (2001) found that 30%
of students in grades 610 had moderate to frequent involvement in bullying with
13% classified as bullies, 11% as victims, and 6% as both. This study used one
item and asked students to self-identify involvement as bullies or victims without
providing a clear definition. Early research focused on physical bullying and
verbal bullying. Relational aggression (similar to ijime) was not even considered
in most studies of bullying in the USA until 1995 with the landmark study by
Crick and Gropeter (1995).
Due to the definitional differences between ijime and bullying, gender
differences are also found between USA and Japan in who engages in bullying/
ijime. USA and European studies consistently report that boys are more likely
than girls to be both the victims and the perpetrators of bullying with boys
typically being bullied by boys, but girls are bullied by both boys and girls (see
Chapter 6 for discussion of gender differences in bullying). However, Japanese
researchers have found few gender differences in ijime, and when they do find
differences girls are more likely to engage in ijime than boys (Morita et al. 1999;
Sugimori 1998). As stated above, in the USA bullying tends to be associated with
hostile home environments. Boys tend to become bullies, if parenting styles are
hostile and aggressive. Girls on the other hand can react by becoming shy and
anxious, which makes them prone to victimization (Perry et al. 2001). In Japan,
father absence due to work or divorce, a motherchild-centered family structure,
maternal overprotection, and the mothers dependency on her child, all contribute
to aggressive behavior and can put children (especially boys) at risk for ijime.
When these conditions are present children can develop deviant behavior that not
only includes bullying peers but can also include abuse of the parent (Hilton et
al. 2010; Kawanishi 2004). As discussed in Chapter 6, bullying is not just based
on socialization of children, but a gendered response to social aggression. For
Japanese boys, being given positions of power in the family appears to contribute
to their expectation of such power outside of the home. For boys in the United
States, witnessing aggression promotes such acts outside of the home.
The first large-scale cross-national comparison between ijime in Japan and
bullying in the West was conducted in 1997 as part of the TMR and revealed that
while bullying in England is more characterized by direct forms of aggression by
one or two students mainly on the playground, ijime in Japan was characterized
by more indirect forms of aggression often conducted by a group of pupils who
were classmates or friends of the victim and occurred mainly in the classroom
(Kanetsuna et al. 2006; Morita et al. 1999). Students are either victimized by the
whole class or within a small group of close friends (Morita et al. 1999). To avoid
isolation, victims cling to the peer group despite being bullied which makes it harder
for adults to detect often mistakenly believing that the victim and aggressors are
just having fun (Hilton et al. 2010; Yoneyama and Naito 2003). Students in other
40
countries, including in the USA are also reluctant to help the victims of bullying
but not to the extent found in Japan (Boulton and Underwood 1993; Melton et al.
1998; Whitney and Smith 1993). Melton and colleagues (1998) found that 65% of
middle school children reported that they usually do not interfere when they see a
fellow student being bullied giving explanations like they are afraid of the bully
coming after them too and saying the bullying incident was none of their business
and they shouldnt get involved.
Interestingly research comparing what strategies students would use in the face
of bullying indicated that students in Japan take more responsibility for stopping
bullying happening to them while students in UK were more likely to seek help
from an adult. Kanetsuna and colleagues (2006) study comparing Japanese and
English students found that Japanese students were more likely to say that victims
take direct action against bullies compared to English students who were more
likely to seek help. These differences may also reflect widespread prevention
education in Western nations that often encourages students to seek help or tell an
adult when being bullied (Orpinas and Horne 2006). In Kanetsuna et al. (2006)
77% of English participants said in the face of relational aggression they would
try to make new friends where this idea was only supported by 11% of Japanese
youth. Some Japanese students stated what when faced with relational aggression
a victim should reflect on yourself where no English students supported that
idea, which may support self-blame for the victimization or blaming the victim in
the ijime context.
Nesdale and Naito (2005) compared Australian and Japanese participants
and found that Japanese participants were more collectivist than Australian and
Australian were more individualistic than Japanese. Australian participants were
more likely to help victims and helping the victim was not influenced by their
connection with the bully or victim or the norms of the classroom group. In
contrast, Japanese participants were least likely to help when they were connected
with the bully. While group dynamics influence behaviors of kids on average,
there appears to be greater impact on students who live in a more collectivist
culture, since they are not just going against the norm of the group, but the culture
in general. Nesdale and Naito (2005) also found different attitudes toward the
bullies and victims. While both national groups favored the victim over the bully,
Japanese were more positive to the bully and less positive to the victim compared
to Australian students, with Japanese rating themselves more similar to the bully
than did Australians. This supported previous findings in Japan that found students
held negative attitudes toward social deviators and were likely to conform to the
attitudes of the group majority (Takemura and Takagi 1988).
Sugimori (1998) suggests that individual differences can provoke ijime
in Japan. Sugimori suggested that the demands of an interdependent culture
encourage ijime and reduce the likelihood that the victim will receive help from
peers. This is an important consideration in reference to the social dynamics and
recursive impact of interactions on the bullying culture. As discussed in Chapter 6,
difference is a key issue throughout cultures, with it obviously being a much bigger
41
issue in more collectivist cultures. In line with this Kanetsuna et al. (2006) found
that English students were more likely to say they would support victims after
being bullied than Japanese students. When asked what schools could do to stop
bullying, English students suggested peer support systems (43%) and punishing
bullies (12%) compared to zero Japanese students endorsing these ideas. Japanese
students (59%) were more likely to support general prevention defined as having
policies in place, education that bullying is bad, supervise students, and teach
tolerance, than English (20%) students who were slightly more likely to suggest
teachers should take direction action (English 37%, Japanese 29%) such as taking
action when bullying is reported that involves the victim and bully. Essentially,
the values of a culture impact the type of bullying and the potential response to it,
although the rates appear consistent across cultures, identifying a consistent threat
to children throughout the world.
Resolution on the Rights of the Child
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly resolution 44/25, 20 November, 1989, has been described as the
most innovative, comprehensive and widely recognized statement of childrens
rights internationally (Gilbert 1998: 3). In November 2009 the international
community celebrated the twentieth anniversary. The CRC is the most widely
ratified human rights treaty, ratified by every country except the United States and
Somalia. The CRC is an internationally recognized agreement between nations
which establishes a comprehensive set of goals for individual nations to achieve
on behalf of their children and in its first 20 years was responsible for changes in
law, policy, and attitudes toward children in many countries (Todres 2011).
Among other things the CRC calls for children to have safe exposure or
access to leisure, play, culture, and art, to be free from violence, abuse, hazardous
employment, exploitation, abduction or sale, to receive equal treatment regardless
of gender, race, or cultural background and to have the right to express opinions
and freedom of thought in matters affecting them. These are related to bullying
because children have the right to feel safe in school in an atmosphere conducive
to learning and bullying is a violation of that right. Children who are bullied or
who witness bullying incidents generally do not feel safe.
Prior to CRC adults usually represented the views and experiences of children,
served as gatekeepers to decide who would be involved in research or whose voice
would be heard (Carroll-Lind et al. 2006). In New Zealand one interpretation of
the CRC has been allowing the use of passive consent for collecting information
from children about things that directly impact them (Carroll-Lind et al. 2006;
Raskauskas 2010; Raskauskas et al. 2010). Passive consent is a procedure in which
parents are notified about the research project and given the option of removing
their child from the study prior to data collection rather than requiring a signed
consent as in active consent. Children are then given the option to assent or not to
42
participate on the day of data collection. Carroll-Lind and colleagues (2006) argue
that passive consent should be viewed as an appropriate approach for studying
childrens experiences with bullying and research aimed at designing prevention
since seeking active consent from parents and caregivers denies some children
their right to choose to participate.
In testimony before the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the US Senate
(Testimony 1995), it was noted that active consent procedures introduce response
bias by negatively affecting participation rates, i.e. that parents who return survey
consent forms are somewhat different from those who do not respond (Baker
et al. 2001). Active parental consent often under represents many important
groups including minorities, low achievers, children with less educated parents,
dissatisfied students, and students who are at risk for engaging in problem school
behavior (Baker et al. 2001; Ellickson and Hawes 1989). In one study, Anderman
et al. (1995) examined differences between grade 9 and grade 12 students with
and without written parental consent to take part in a sensitive health survey.
Subjects with written consent were more likely to be White, to live in two-parent
households, to have a grade point average of B or above, and to be involved
in extracurricular activities. High-risk youth, such as those with hostile home
environments or parents with substance use issues are unlikely to have parents who
provide schools with written consent for their childrens participation in programs
to support them or in the evaluation of such programs (Jason et al. 2001).
Passive consent has also been supported by research indicating that parents
who do not return consent forms often do not object to their child participating
in the research but rather outside factors like forgetting, the child losing the form,
or parents not having time to read it result in consent form not being returned
(Ellickson and Hawes 1989). Ellickson and Hawes (1989) found when they
followed up with parents who had or had not given consent that 96% of nonresponding parents did not object to having their child participate in the study.
Baker et al. (2001) found in their study in Canada with a random sample of 130
parents from a larger adolescent health study that there were significant differences
between parents who refused to allow their children to participate and consenting
parents and parents who did not return consent on their rating of the importance of
research with children and other attitudes about child agency.
The findings suggest that non-responding parents are characteristically more
similar to consenting-parents than to refusing-parents, which supports the use of
passive consent procedures as a reasonable alternative to requiring active parental
consent in adolescent research. While this method has been around for many years
it has largely been rejected by institutional review boards who approve human
subjects research. Passive consent has gained support in countries that have
adopted the CRC since its inception but the majority of research on bullying still
requires active consent, especially in the United States who still has not signed the
CRC, and therefore most research is biased by low return rates especially among
disadvantaged subgroups and most extreme victims/bullies who are often removed
from samples with either active or passive consent (Raskauskas 2010).
43
Implications for Prevention/Intervention

Cultural differences both across the collectivist-individualistic divide and within
each group need to be considered when looking at bullying at a national or global
level. One of the most important implications for bullying prevention is the social
context and the roles that everyone plays within it (Salmivalli 2001). Many antibullying programs emphasize the role of bystanders in prevention and intervention
since many incidents of bullying occur when adults are not present, but the
cultural acceptance of bystanders getting involved, the likelihood of bystanders
joining in the bullying versus helping and the attitudes toward interpersonal
aggression in the society should be considered. Rigby and McLaughlin (2005)
reported on a Cross-national School Behavior Project, which involved research
in Australia, Bangladesh, England, Israel, Italy and South Africa. While research
has not yet compared the data across these countries in themes of incidence, they
all investigated the role of bystanders in reducing bullying and found bystander
intervention to be a key factor. Still, the willingness of bystanders to get involved
and the conditions that increased the likelihood of intervention were culturally
based and differed by study. Collectivist cultures take more social responsibility for
keeping others safe too so bystander interventions may be particularly effective. In
the NZ sample, 94% agree that it is important to stand up for others being bullied.
While the problem of bullying occurs across countries nation-wide responses
are not common. This is often due to the barriers to these programs which include
the way that schools are organized, their level of autonomy, and the fact that the
culture and individuals needs of schools differs in accordance with the make-up
of the population. For example, a higher income school is more likely to have
problems with covert and relational aggression where a lower income school
is more likely to deal with more physical bullying. Similarly countries with
multiple ethnicities and religions will have variability between schools in terms of
culturally responsive ways to address bullying (Laeheem et al. 2009; Tankersley
2001). Most countries tend to address the problem by obtaining or commissioning
the development of a program based on best practices then making it available
for schools to adopt but few countries mandate the use of a specific curriculum.
That being said, many western countries have educational codes or laws that
require that schools have some program in place to address bullying within their
schools (Jimerson et al. 2010; Limber and Small 2003). There is no one-size-fitsall program that will apply to every child in every nation. It is important to pick
a program that allows for tailoring to culturally sensitive issue and within group
differences. There are many programs that are individual-oriented, below are just
a few examples to show programs that are tailored more to individualistic cultural
values. Many others are discussed throughout this book:
Back off Bully (Grades K5). This program specifically targets bullying.
It teaches all students and teachers/staff to become helpful bystanders to
44
reduce the power imbalance of bullying. This is done through skill building
classroom trainings (Twemlow et al. 2001).
Bully Busters (Grades K8). This is a program designed to increase
awareness about bullying and increase teachers skills to respond to
bullying (Horne et al. 2003). Research has shown the program is effective
in increasing knowledge and ability to prevent and respond to bullying
as well as reduction in discipline referrals after the program (Orpinas and
Horne 2006).
Where the individualistic type programs emphasize increasing individual
skills, punishment for violation of rules, and the role of teachers and staff in
prevention, more collectivist focused programs look at the group situation and
value maintaining relationships. Below some programs that are based more
on collectivist orientation values are discussed including: Restorative Justice,
Character Counts, and Support Groups.
Restorative Justice is a way of dealing with unjust behavior by providing
conditions in which the bully recognizes their fault and the harm that has been
done and then undertakes action to put things right. Typically this is facilitated
through a meeting involving the victim, bully and others (i.e., teachers, parents,
etc.). It is like a group intervention with the group making it clear to the bully that
the behavior is unacceptable. The purpose of the meeting is to induce appropriate
emotional response (e.g., empathy, shame, guilt) in the bully, while supporting
the victim and reintegrating them in the school community. Under favorable
conditions this approach has had positive and lasting effects on bullies (Burssens
and Vettenburg 2006) but its success is limited by the willingness for everyone to
engage in a process that lets the bully atone rather than a process that punishes or
gains revenge (Rigby and Bauman 2010).
Character Counts is a value based program framework centered on basic
values called the Six Pillars of Character: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility,
fairness, caring and citizenship. It is supposed to transcend politics, religion, and
cultural differences. It isnt a curriculum, an add-on, an out-of-the-box program, or
a quick-fix fad. The flexible methodology lets you shape your character-education
initiative to your needs. The program states that bullying, or even standing by idly
while it happens, is just not something a person of character does. This program
uses peer pressure to follow social rules (i.e. pillars) to regulate social behavior
and deputizes everyone in the school environment to point out when someone is
or is not displaying the character pillars.
Support Groups are student-based groups designed to support one another in
areas such as gaining peer acceptance, dealing with divorce, a recent death in the
family, or physical disablement. Before joining a support group, many children
feel that they are alone in their suffering. Interacting with other children with
similar problems can lessen their feeling of isolation in this way a support group
would be ideal for the victims of bullying and teasing (Raskauskas 2013; Ross
2003). In addition to providing emotional support for the victims, one goal of the
45
support group set-up is to introduce behavior changes that would provide them
with protection against bullying and teasing. The group format is ideal for practice
in role play, along with reversal of roles as a way of showing the victim how it
feels to be a bully or teaser. However, some have indicated that support groups
may not be useful for victims of bullying if it does not teach skills and makes
them feel stigmatized. Also support groups may not be successful for bullies if
they are unstructured and provide discourse and attitudes that reinforce aggressive
behavior (Orpinas and Horne 2006). Still, support groups have been successful in
UK schools as an intervention strategy (see Robinson and Maines 2007).
These programs should not be viewed as being prescribed for individualistic
or collectivist cultures as identified by Hofstede (1980; 1991); the main difference
between the two program categories is that one addresses the individual more and
the other tends to move to the group level for the intervention. What is important
is that the use of different types of programs is influenced by the dynamics of
the culture in which it exists, and thus must be constructed to fit within the
social expectations of the society. This does not mean that in collectivist culture,
individualist responses cannot be affective. Instead, they need to be implemented
in a context that responds to the collective group dynamic, just as an individualistic
culture can utilize group-based programs to intervene in bullying. They work in
conjunction to change the culture that allows the bullying to persist.
Chapter 4
Beyond the School Grounds and

Back to Campus
While much of the spotlight on reducing rates of bullying and protecting students
has been on the schools role, focusing solely on the school does not fully attend
to the complicated dynamics of a bullying culture much less address it in its
entirety. Cole (1990) expressed that the use of an ecological systems perspective
involves the intertwining relationships of all potential stakeholders around a
social problem, and not just those directly involved. This means including the
surrounding community as a part of the jigsaw puzzle that must be pieced together
for understanding and responding to bullying.
We regard the community as any individuals, groups, institutions or social
context that are not directly affiliated with the school environment, including the
surrounding neighborhood, criminal justice system, family and, in some context,
the cyber world. All of these have a potential impact on bullying within schools,
and as a result, all need to develop a level of responsibility for helping to change
the culture that allows for bullying to persist. In this book, we do not engage
the community solely as a causal variable but rather as an interactive factor that
influences, extends and impacts bullying experiences. To do this, we address the
relationship between bullying outside of school and inside of school, community
factors that influence experiences of bullying, and the impact that the community,
as individuals, groups, and the neighborhood culture can have on bullying.
Interactive Impact on Community
Considering the feedback aspect of the modified Ecological Model it is important
to understand that the relationship between the community and bullying is not
unidirectional, meaning that school bullying and bullying rates have an impact
on the community just as community factors can influence bullying rates. For
example, there is a well-established relationship between violence in schools
and crime in the neighborhood. The impact on a neighborhood that has a school
with high bullying rates will likely be high delinquency and crime rates in the
same community. A study of 1163 7th and 8th grade students in Germany showed
that bullying in school increased the likelihood of anti-social experiences later
in life (Bender and Lsel 2011). In a study of children in Canada affiliated with
the criminal justice system it was found that childhood bullying increased the
likelihood of criminal offenses (Jiang et al. 2011).
48
Feedback from bullying is not limited to rates of violence but can also impact
social relationships outside of school, such as the family. Bullying often ends up
undermining close family relationships (Klein 2012: 236). In particular, students
who are victimized, their relationships with parents can become strained. A greater
divide between parents and child occurs largely because the student feels he or she
is unable to share with parents due to fear of the parental response. In the United
States, a student fears parents will tell the school, and in Japan, that parents will be
shamed. This concern of parental response, along with the stress of being bullied,
increases the likelihood of conflict among family members. Increased conflict
can end up distancing a student from a potential supportive network who can
protect the victim from the negative outcomes of being bullied (Butler and Lynn
Platt 2008; Holt et al. 2009), as we discuss in detail below. Simply what we are
trying to convey with these examples is that both the community and community
members, including family are impacted by school bullying, and not just that the
community shapes bullying in schools. There is feedback upon the community
from school culture.
Bullying In and Away from School
While consistent bullying (or anti-bullying) within schools can impact the
surrounding community, what is of greater concern in the immediacy for most
people is that bullying is not isolated within the school environment. Bullying
exists for kids off campus (e.g. Duncan 2004; Finkelhor et al. 2005; Holt et al.
2007a). A study of 3rd and 5th grade students in an afterschool program in the
United States found that bullying exists after the regular school day ends, with
20% of students being identified as victims (Garner and Hinton 2010). Finkelhor
and colleagues (2005) conducted a phone survey of 2,030 children and caregivers
(217 years of age) that asked about victimization experiences throughout a
community. The results showed that 15% had experienced victimization in 46
categories/social environments across home, school and community and a further
7% had experienced victimization in 7 or more settings. These results demonstrate
a wide swath of aggression that exists throughout a community.
We are not claiming a directional relationship but rather a correlation between
victimization on and off campus. The likelihood of being a victim of aggression
increases as one is targeted by an aggressor in another context, i.e. the persistence
of victimization (Correia and Vala 2003). A child who is victimized is more likely
to encounter aggression/violence in another environment. For example, some
children who are bullied are also victims of child abuse (Duncan 2004; Nickerson
et al. 2010), sexual harassment/dating violence (Pepler et al. 2006), or community
violence (Finkelhor et al. 2007). This stability across environments of role as
victim is often used as an excuse to blame the individual for their experiences,
when it is really part of the larger social problem. First, being victimized can
marginalize an individual (Mikami et al. 2010), which puts a student at greater
49
risk for being a future victim (Hodges and Malone 1997), often beyond the school
environment (we discuss this is more detail in Chapter 8). This is not the victims
fault but rather a result of a culture that allows for bullying to occur.
Furthermore, children from homes with dysfunction have aggression and
poor social skills modeling, which put them at risk for becoming targets at
school. Similarly, areas of high community violence occur traditionally in low
socioeconomic areas which are also likely to have fewer community resources and
schools with less trained staff and fewer programs for addressing bullying. All of
these factors contribute exponentially to the probability of being a victim, not to
mention being victimized in multiple forms and venues (Miller et al. 2013; Shields
and Cicchetti 2001). Miller and colleagues (2013) conducted a multi-racial study
of 795 youths that found that more than half of the students were victims of two
or more of the following: bullying, sexual harassment, and/or dating violence.
The authors point out that their results underscore the interrelated nature of
dating violence, sexual harassment, and bullying (p. 615), as the victimizations
commonly co-occur. It is believed that individuals experience multiple forms of
victimization because these aggressive behaviors are related to the same peer and
family dysfunctions, along with being supported by the same larger community
and social norms concerning the use of aggression in relationships.
While a student who is bullied may be a victim outside of school, what is
of greater concern for schools is the bullying off campus that is directly linked
to the victimization in school. Whitney and Smith (1993) asked students in the
UK to identify the primary locations in which their victimization occurred. The
locations identified were the playground, hallways, and on the way to/from school.
While observational research has documented frequency of victimization on the
playground (Craig et al. 2000; Mahady Wilton et al. 2000) and on the school bus
(Raskauskas 2005), those studies didnt explicitly examine the overlap between
these environments and bullying at school. Raskauskas (2010) found that children
who were bullied both at school and on the way to/from school were more likely
to blame themselves for being bullied and therefore less likely to seek assistance.
This research also showed that experiencing bullying in multiple forms and
across context is associated with greater social-emotional problems. Essentially,
victimization follows a student to school and leaves with them after school. Antibullying programs based on the Ecological Model (Chapter 2) or Whole-School
Approach (Chapter 6) emphasize the importance of community engagement,
whether the bullying off campus is directly linked to their victimization at school
or indirectly by establishing them as a potential victim for other aggressive actions.
The significant point is that bullying in the neighborhood extends the negative
experiences that occur at school as well as further enables a culture of bullying to
exist on a campus.
50
Cyber Bullying
A relatively new community context is the cyber-world. In recent years there has
been a growing body of research looking at cyber bullying or bullying in cyberspace.
Tokunaga (2010) defined cyber bullying as any behavior performed through
electronic or digital media by individuals or groups that repeatedly communicates
hostile or aggressive messages intended to inflict harm or discomfort on others
(p. 278). Cyber bullying primarily makes use of verbal and indirect aggression
such as spreading gossip, rumors, secrets, insults, threats, mean names, images,
videos, and facilitating exclusion (Li 2007; Smith et al. 2008b; Tokunaga 2010).
Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, and Tippett (2008a) conducted two
studies in England with students aged 1116 years in which they found that textmessage and phone call bullying are the most common forms of cyber bullying
reported both inside and outside of school. In their first study they reported that
14% of students reported being bullied often at school (32% once or twice and
54% never) and that 6% of students were cyber bullied often (16% once or twice
and 78% never).
Schools, even if aware of cyber bullying, often do not respond because they
cannot readily identify that the bullying occurred on campus (Hinduja and Patchin
2007; 2009). Still, as discussed in Chapter 3, there exists a correlation between
cyber bullying and traditional forms of bullying that often occurs on campus
(Hinduja and Patchin 2010; Raskauskas and Migliaccio 2012; Raskauskas and
Stoltz 2007), which has been found in Austria (Gradinger et al. 2009), Germany
(Katzer et al. 2009), and the United States (Kowalski et al. 2012b). Students who
suffer from cyber bullying are also likely to suffer from an exponential increase
in being sexually harassed at school (Ybarra et al. 2007). In the United States,
Ybarra and Mitchell (2004) conducted a study with a follow up analysis (Ybarra et
al. 2006), which identified that of the victims of cyber bullying, 44% of them also
suffered from traditional bullying. Of these, 25% of the students who were bullied
using technology experienced aggressive acts of violence offline (Ybarra et al.
2006). This relationship has been shown to persist throughout most communities,
including urban environments (Varjas et al. 2009). Raskauskas (2010) also found
in a study of New Zealand students a large overlap of victimization between cyber
bullying and traditional forms of bullying. Furthermore, in a research project
from the United Kingdom discussed earlier, it was found that both victims and
bullies involved in cyber bullying are likely to also be engaged in bullying offline
(Smith et al. 2008b). In Turkey, it was found that this issue was prevalent among
male students but not female students (Erdur-Baker 2010), while in the United
States although the relationship between the two is more common for females,
it does exist for males (Kowalski et al. 2012b). This difference may be due to
methodological determinations in the research, or potentially because culturally
there are different expectations and interactions for boys and girls. Regardless, the
interaction between bullying online and at school highlights that bullying beyond
school can reinforce the power dynamics among students at school.
51
There is an assumption that the anonymous nature of technology creates an

even larger power imbalance than in traditional bullying, making cyber bullying
potentially more dangerous. However, while the power imbalance of the bully and
victim relationship still exists in cyber space it is unclear whether cyber bullies
really use anonymity to create this power imbalance. Data collected as part of our
USA sample from one middle school (grades 78, ages 1215) and one secondary
school (grades 912, ages 1518 years) allows us to illustrate the overlap between
cyber and traditional victimization and whether or not bullies were known or
unknown to victims. This sample included 271 adolescents (52% male) and was
primarily Hispanic (65%) and Asian (20%). The grade breakdown was as follows:
7th grade (12%), 8th grade (16%), 9th grade (19%), 10th grade (18%), 11th grade
(20%) and 12th grade (15%). Within the sample, 24% of the students said they
had been bullied at school in the current school year and 10% were cyber bullied.
Table 4.1 shows the percentage of students reporting each type of cyber bullying
and whether they reported that they knew the person and they also bullied them
at school.
Table 4.1
Overlap of cyber bullying and bullying at school
Forms of Cyber
Bullying Identified
Percentage who had

Percentage of victims who
experienced this during knew the bully and were also
the current school year bullied by them at school
Receiving phone calls,

texts or picture messages
with mean names,
comments, threats, or
upsetting images.
26
65
Receiving emails or
instant messages with
mean names, comments,
threats, or upsetting
images.
21
57
Had mean comments or

threats directed toward
me posted on a website or
social networking site.
17
55
As shown in Table 4.1, more than half of all cyber bullying victims knew their
attackers and were also bullied at school in all three cases; another 3% or 2 additional
victims stated that they knew their attacker but that they only bullied them through
cyber methods, which means that the remaining cyber victims did not know their
attackers. This is consistent with prior research (e.g. Li 2007; Raskauskas 2010)
52
and brings to question the widespread belief that adolescents choose to bully
through cyber space because it affords anonymity. Based on the findings, students
are not as interested in maintaining anonymity, which fits within the context of
bullying being a social experience. Cyber bullying is more of a means to extend
bullying off school grounds and into a childs home or community, likely then
extending the power being exerted over the victim, and ultimately the community.
It is clear that bullying beyond school grounds, such as cyber bullying, can be
an extension of the bullying from school (Li 2007; Ybarra and Mitchell 2004).
Others argue that cyber bullying is a different context, even when an overlap exists
(Dempsey et al. 2009; Kowalski et al. 2012a). However, a correlation exists, and
its impact on students is considerable. Studies in both Austria (Gradinger et al.
2009) and New Zealand (Raskauskas 2010) concluded that students who are
victimized through both cyber and traditional forms of bullying experience higher
rates of depression than those who experience one form of bullying. Suffering
from multiple forms of bullying can also amplify perceptions of a student as a
victim, which have been found to persist over time, and remain more entrenched
the longer bullying persists (Evans and Eder 1993; Merton 1996).
It should be noted that cyber bullying is only one form of cyber-aggression.
Children can also experience other forms of harassment online, like trolling.
Trolling is when individuals behave in deceptive, destructive, or disruptive ways
in online social settings for no apparent instrumental purpose (Buckels et al.
2014). Trolling incidences often comprised random acts of aggression. The term
is believed to originate from fishing and refers to trawling of a baited linewhich
users relate to acts that provoke and antagonize others online, causing a negative
emotional response (Thacker and Griffiths 2012). Internet users often liken trolling
to the mythical trolls that hide under bridges waiting to pounce on unsuspecting
travelers, because trolls are also waiting in the online world for the opportunity
to attack (Herring et al. 2002). For example, a type of trolling, griefing, occurs in
online gaming when players deliberately try to ruin a gaming experience through
undermining objectives or even team killing (Thacker and Griffiths 2012). An
interesting point about trolling is that bystanders who observe trolling feel better
about themselves afterward even as the victim feels worse (Thacker and Griffiths
2012). This shows how the social environment allows for the behavior and does
not support intervening on behalf of the victim, just like bullying.
Trolling differs from cyber bullying because of the deceptive and pointless
hurting of others not known to the bully (Buckels et al. 2014). In cyber bullying,
the perpetrators identity is more likely to be known, largely because there is an
existing relationship between bully and victim (Lenhardt 2012; Raskauskas and
Stoltz 2007). Trolling, in contrast, while there is intent to harm or humiliate a
victim, along with a power imbalance as a result of anonymity and deceit, there
is little to no relationship between bully and victim. Still, trolling relates to the
current discussion because it occurs in the online environment and can spill into
school when students do not know whether the harassment is from a known peer
or not.
53
Most important, this discussion is meant to illustrate that all aggression occurs
in a social context and that bullying experiences do not exist solely in schools.
Furthermore, the events that occur outside of school can still impact student wellbeing and the culture within the school. Victimization does not occur in a vacuum.
Schools have been hampered with addressing online aggression and cyber bullying
because of the social dynamics of schools. The focal aspect of childrens lives
exists within and around schools and the affiliated activities. Students are required
to attend school by law in many countries, leaving few options for avoiding bullies.
Outside of school, there is limited social engagement with such a diverse group
of individuals, allowing children to avoid negative or dangerous interactions and/
or people. Schools, unlike many other locations in which children interact, are
more controlled environments, and include a power structure, i.e. administration,
staff and faculty who are expected to hold students accountable for their actions.
Finally, there is an easily identifiable social indicator for others to perceive when
students are struggling: Grades. This is not to put the onus on schools for the
existence of bullying but rather to note that we rely heavily on schools to address
bullying because we are more likely to be aware of its existence during school
hours. At home, children can hide in their rooms, or even pretend the issues do
not exist, limiting parents awareness of the experiences. That is why schools have
the structure and governance to be able to respond in multiple formats to bullying.
This does not mean it is solely the responsibility of schools to rid a community of
bullying both within and outside of school.
Community Impact
The above discussion clarified that bullying does not reside solely in the school,
highlighting a strong relationship between aggressive experiences among students
on and off a school campus. This, however, does not fully represent the impact that
the culture of a surrounding community can have on bullying. It is important to
recognize the involvement and interaction within the community that perpetuates
bullying. As Bowes et al. expressed, in their study of 2,232 twins in England and
Wales, hostile interactions in local communities provide children with examples
of bullying behaviors that they can reproduce among their peers (2009: 551). In
studies of the relationship between communities and aggression, there has been a
consistent emphasis on communities that on average have higher rates of violence
(Kupersmidt et al. 1995). Students who observe community violence are more
likely to engage in aggressive acts at school, including bullying (Schwartz and
Proctor 2000). Increases in bullying as a result of community violence have also
been found in England and Wales. In the longitudinal study of twins in England
and Wales identified above, it was found that students who attended school in
neighborhoods that have higher rates of violence and aggression were more likely
to be involved in bullying (Bowes et al. 2009).
54
While focus has been on the levels of violence in the community, as articulated
through the Ecological Model, it is the attitudes of the community that helps
to define interactions among individuals. For example, communities that have
a higher level of homophobic attitudes or racism tend to have higher rates of
bullying in the school (Atlas and Pepler 1998). The school culture that allows for
bullying to persist is influenced by the surrounding community, which includes
structure of the community, class levels, family dynamics and interaction with the
police. For example, in a study by Timm and Eskell-Blokland (2011) of bullying
in a poor South African township, the researchers interviewed individuals who
represented different aspects of the community. They noted that violence in the
schools is predicated on social expectations within the larger community. As they
concluded, The possibility of exposure to the discourse of violence runs through
all strata of society, bringing it into the local school ecology (2011: 344). This
engagement with violence and attitudes about violence stems, in part, from the
limited resources that exist within the community (Aponte 1990).
In particular, it has been noted that community violence increases the negative
impact of bullying on students in urban areas (Espelage et al. 2000). This issue for
inner cities is heightened by the high prevalence of violence students experiences
in their neighborhoods. Purugganan et al. (2000) found that upwards of 79% of
middle school students from urban areas encountered some form of violence within
their community. Such experiences are not limited to older students; Richters and
Martinez (1993) found in a study of 610 year olds that 61% of students in grades
1 and 2 reported observing a violent act and/or crime within their community.
In a survey of 10,270 parents of kids who attend urban school throughout the
United States, the researchers found that one-quarter of parents believed their
child witnessed some form of violent crime (Perkins 2008). The awareness of
violence in their community presents itself on campus. In a companion study of
the parent survey, a survey of 32,000 students from 13 different states in urban
school districts found that 60% of students identified that there are a high number
of fights that occur in their school and over 50% of them have witnessed bullying
of some form, most often in the form of physical aggression (Perkins 2005).
Specifically, Perkins found that victims of community violence have an increased
likelihood of being victimized through bullying. Garner found that bullies tend
to live in lower income and less educated households (2010: 492). In a study in
Colombia of urban 28,933 5th grade students and 24,383 9th grade students found
that there is a bivariate relationship between bullying when, for 5th graders, armed
conflict exists in the community, and, more important, for 9th graders there was
greater poverty (Chaux et al. 2009).
It is not that bullying is solely an issue in urban communities, having also
been identified in suburban (Bowllan 2011; Walter et al. 2006) and rural schools
(Farmer et al. 2011). Stockdale et al. (2002), in a study of 739 rural students, found
that parents, teachers and students alike perceived that physical bullying was the
most common form of bullying that occurs within their school. This differs from
general past studies in that physical bullying is not the most common form of
55
bullying, instead it was verbal or exclusion (Espelage and Swearer 2003). Still,
similar to other studies, Stockdale et al. (2002) found that more positive attitudes
toward aggressiveness increased the likelihood of aggressive behavior, meaning
that such factors cross-over to different communities. Within rural communities,
there has been found to be a greater prevalence of bullies compared to other
communities (for full discussion see Nansel et al. 2001). This has been discovered
because of what would appear to be a static community. While schools in rural
communities tend to be smaller, which reduces bullying overall, the position
and roles of individuals tend to be set long term in the community, including the
dynamics of bullying. To overcome this limitation, Farmer et al. (2011) identified
that having a transition into each level of school (they analyzed transitions into
middle schools because of the high rate of bullying at that age) helped to change
and challenge the social expectations that define the roles of individuals and
ultimately the culture of bullying.
The relationship between different variables and bullying in schools is more
of a conflagration of factors that interact with one another to produce a status of
difference within the community and the subsequent school. Kids who live in atrisk communities are not emboldened to experience aggression and bullying at
school simply because of the community. While some of it may be related to the
experience with violence in their community, it is that threat of violence that alters
their overall interactions in the schools. For example, living in neighborhoods
that are considered less safe, kids are more likely to identify they have fewer
friends, largely because parents are less likely to entertain them at the house and
the kids are not allowed to venture outside the house (Medrich 1982). Having
fewer interactions with kids outside of school emphasizes school as a location
for social engagements and dealing with disagreements. Even more important,
interactions with others reduces bullies perceptions of difference, which is
paramount in bullying situations (Thornberg 2011). Expansive engagement with a
more diverse group of people also enhances social interaction among individuals
that may reduce bullying.
Schools in at-risk communities also tend to have inadequate resources in
comparison to other schools, which limits teacher training, support for changing
a culture and an overall resource rationing to support kids (Cunningham and
Henggeler 2001). This is only exacerbated by the existence of fewer highly
qualified teachers in low-income neighborhoods (Evans 2004), limiting their
ability to enact change when bullying occurs (Walter et al. 2006). Essentially, the
community influences what types of teachers are most likely to work at a school,
as well as the level of training they receive and the resources available to aid them.
All of this contributes to the feeling of safety of a student, influencing the culture
of bullying at a school (Espelage and Swearer 2003a).
While limited research has been conducted that directly compares bullying
rates in different communities, Percy-Smith and Matthews (2001) performed a
comparative study of neighborhood bullying of 181 youth from both suburban and
inner city communities in England. In the analysis, it was found that bullying was
56
more prevalent in the inner areas (57%) compared with the suburban area (42%)
(2001: 57). This was likely a result of social and cultural capital differentiation,
with suburban kids having greater access to alternative activities outside of
school that did not require informal interaction outside of the home, away from
protected social environments. Kupersmidt et al. (1995) found in a study of
differing communities in the United States that middle class neighborhoods had
significantly lower rates of bullying than low-income communities, such as urban
and rural communities.
Higher rates of bullying in lower income areas, however, do not exist solely
because of the aggression levels within the community. That blames the culture
rather than considering the complex social engagements, which produce a
different culture within the school. Furthermore, a cultural perspective does not
take into account the higher dropout rates in rural schools, including in both the
United States (McGranahan 2004) and China (Yi et al. 2012). These higher rates
may perpetuate a culture of bullying because victims and bully-victims drop out,
while bullies remain. This does little to change attitudes about the bullying culture,
although it does reduce the number of targets. A cultural perspective also does not
take into account that urban schools, on average, tend to be larger and have more
students per classroom. This decreases the ability of staff and faculty to monitor
interactions, making them less likely to adequately respond to bullying when it
occurs. All of these factors lean toward a resources argument, meaning social
resources can be used to offset inequality issues that may address aggression and
violence, and ultimately bullying in some communities. In the Ecological Model,
it is about changing institutional level practices, and in this context, resource
levels to reduce bullying.
Arguing that community determines bullying rates within a school oversimplifies the relationship between community and school culture. There are
multiple factors that contribute to the existence and form of bullying that occurs
within schools. Community factors provide one piece of the puzzle toward
understanding bullying. It is not that middle-class communities create inherently
less aggressive kids, which, as noted above, is not true. What does need to be
considered is that middle-class communities offer protective factors, even for
kids who grow up in at-risk homes (Rutter 1985), in poverty and/or single-parent
homes (Kupersmidt et al. 1995), all which are impacted by the race of the student.
The simple point is that there is an interactive relationship that occurs between
communal, familial and individual factors that increase or decrease bullying within
a school, as well as for an individual. In a study in Colombia, in which mitigating
factors were evaluated, the impact of poverty on bullying for 9th graders that was
initially identified as relevant became insignificant when a host of other factors
were considered (Chaux et al. 2009). In effect, there are social responses that can
mitigate the effects of bullying within a school as bullying is not dictated by the
existence of one factor (individual, school, social, culture, etc.) (Stockdale et al.
2002). Conners-Burrow et al. (2009) found that while parents play an important
role in a victims experiences, when parental support is low, teacher support can
57
offset the limitation of a lack of parental involvement. Essentially, the differences

that exist across communities appear to influence bullying rates, which schools
should be able to have an impact on (Chaux et al. 2009: 526). This is not to
argue that it is the responsibility of schools to change the culture of bullying.
As discussed throughout this chapter, bullying exists and is perpetuated through
community behaviors and values. What we are trying to argue is that community
factors, while contributing to the probability of bullying, can be offset by other
factors. One must first be aware of those factors that interact with other social
issues to allow for schools to create safe learning environments.
Family
While Kupersmidt et al. (1995) found that attending school in a small city,
community was a factor, if not a more important factor in determining child
aggression than familial factors, this does not discount the impact of family. As
the primary socializer of children, it is important to understand how the family
impacts experiences of bullying at a school. Studies have found significant overlap
between involvement in bullying with aggression from parents (Duncan 2004;
Holt et al. 2007a) or siblings (Duncan 2004; Duncan 1999). In a study of 1,719
5th and 6th grade students from Belgium, it was found that family relationships,
in particular of kids who bully, are correlated with being involved with bullying,
displaying greater power differentials and demonstrating lower levels of
communication (Stevens et al. 2002). In another example, Mohapatra et al. (2010)
concluded in a study of over 2,000 children aged 1219 in Canada that victims of
bullying were more likely to be from families who had a history with CPS. Bullyvictims in particular expressed their families had greater problems. What was
intriguing from this study is that parents expressed little to no differences in family
dynamics compared to children who were involved in bullying. Simply, children
involved in bullying perceived greater disparity and conflict within family than
their parents did, emphasizing the importance of informing parents when bullying
is identified, as they can assist with addressing bullying (Butler and Lynn Platt
2008; Mishna 2003).
Familial relations are an important part of reducing bullying in a school, or
limiting the impact of bullying on victims. Conners-Burrow et al. (2009) concluded
in their study of middle school rural students that parental support had a tremendous
impact on reducing experiences of depression for victims of bullying. The impact is
even greater for bully-victims who often suffer more from being bullied (Schwartz
2000). Similarly, parents in suburban areas of the United States have been found
to have an impact on bullying within a school. This does not always mean that it
is a positive impact, as parents have been shown to educate their kids on bullying
behaviors, either by bullying their kids, or as often occurs, bullying other adults
(Klein 2012). This is particularly relevant for parents in at-risk communities, who
tend to rely on more direct and punitive forms of punishment which increases the
58
Data Box 4.1What parents say

Parents from the USA sample were asked to complete a survey. 1,044 parents (78%
Female, 18% Male, 4% Not Answered) completed the survey. Parents ranged from
1860 years, with more falling within the range of 3140 years age frame (46%).
Parents were primarily Hispanic (54%) and (18%) Caucasian. Their children were
enrolled in grades 2 through high school: 25% Grades 23, 52% Grades 46, 13%
Middle School, 7% High School, 3% Not Answered.
Of the 38% of parents who said their child had been bullied during the current
school year, 90% had heard about the bullying from their child and less than 1% had
heard from the teacher or school. Less than 1% said that the school had contacted them
about their child bullying others. This is important because it conveys a context that
bullying extends beyond school. What was most compelling from this data was the
number of parents who returned the surveys. On average, parental survey completion
is significantly lower than parental permission of a student being part of a study, and
yet we had a similar number of parent surveys returned as students who participated.
Furthermore, about one half (51%) said that the school did respond to their childs
bullying problem, and 50% said the school could have done more to help. In fact,
parental response was likely related to the perception of school inaction, as a number of
parents contacted us to make sure the schools would not be reviewing nor controlling
the completed surveys.
aggression of kids (Ary and Duncan 1999). The influence harsh parenting has
is enhanced when it correlates with family upheaval or conflict. It limits the
socio-emotional development of a child, increasing the likelihood of having more
aggressive and anti-social behaviors (Evans 2004). Similarly, a study in England
concluded that socialization into bullying can also occur through interactions and
conflict with siblings, as well as parents (Bowes et al. 2009).
Learning can also come from viewing aggression within the family, which
increases the likelihood of engaging in bullying behaviors (Hazemba et al. 2008).
From a more specific experience, bullies tend to have fathers who exhibit more
power in the home, often through hostile means (Butler and Lynn Platt 2008).
Knous-Westfall et al. (2012) found that students from an impoverished area of
New York, who grew up in families that displayed any intimate partner violence
were more likely to be victimized by overt forms of bullying. Additionally, those
children who were raised in severely violent homes were more likely to suffer
from both direct and relational forms of bullying. The socialization is not limited
to bullying types of behaviors, but educating children about what is valued in the
society, and ultimately, that social status and appearance matters in the United
States and attaining it through any means is important (Klein 2012). Simply, kids
learn from their parents and apply this knowledge to their interactions at school.
It is not just about more direct education, as the form of the parent-child
relationships influence bullying experiences. A study of middle school students
throughout the Guangdong Province in China found that poor parental care
increased the likelihood of being a part of bullying, either as a bully or a victim
59
(Hui et al. 2012). In England, this was found to be a greater issue for bully-victims
(Bowes et al. 2009). Even when controlling for socio-environmental factors, a
low-level intimate relationship with a mother increases the likelihood of a child
being a bully. Another study has found that bullies mothers tended to be more
lenient (Butler and Lynn Platt 2008).
For victims, parents who are overly involved or overprotective can increase
the likelihood of being victimized (Duncan 2011; Finnegan et al. 1998; Georgiou
2008). These parents may encourage learned helplessness or anxious behavior in
their children, which has been shown to increase risk for victimization. This seems
counterintuitive to Wang et al.s (2009) findings from the United States that greater
parental support was associated with lower frequency of both cyber victimization
and traditional victimization. Similarly, in China, it was found that having positive
communication style with parents decreased the likelihood of being victimized
(Hui et al. 2012). The distinction is that Duncan (2011) and Georgiou (2008) are
likely studying parental involvement within the childs life, which can limit the
childs choices. Wang, et al. (2009), however, is clarifying parental support and
Hui et al. (2012) is examining communication styles, both of which give a student
support without taking away choice.
Intervention in Community
School intervention programs, most of which draw on the Olweus Bullying
Program (Olweus 1993), consistently recognize that the surrounding community
can have an impact on the culture of bullying in a school (Espelage and Swearer
2010; Olweus 2001). These programs, however, often do not incorporate larger
community response that, as discussed above, influences bullying. Still, as nations
begin to establish large-scale responses to bullying (Sweden (Olweus 1993),
England (Whitney and Smith 1993), Australia (Rigby and Slee 1991), Japan
(Rios-Ellis et al. 2000) and the United States (Bryn 2011; Nansel et al. 2001), all
programs have articulated that involvement of the surrounding community in an
ongoing relationship is vital to addressing bullying (Brion-Meisels and Selman
1996). Individualized programs often are unsuccessful (Aboud and Miller 2007).
Overall, Bowllan identified that while programs can be effective in changing the
culture of bullying within a school, to be more thoroughly impactful, we need to
decipher strategies that strengthen community partnerships (2011: 172).
Much of the effort to get community involved in the reduction of bullying
has been accomplished through the internet. Federal anti-bullying sites exist
for many countries including www.stopbullying.gov for the US and www.gov.
uk/bullying-at-school in the UK. In particular, cyber bullying has been an issue
that has necessitated the support of the community, since much of it stems from
interactions away from school. Along with this, social networking sites, including
Facebook and Myspace have pledged to remove any pages that emphasize
negative or hateful ideas directed toward another person. Facebook even created
60
an anti-bullying page and campaign for the Be Bold program in both Canada
(https://www.facebook.com/beboldstopbullyingca) and Australia (https://www.
facebook.com/beboldstopbullyingau). While the initial response by networking
sites of removing abusive pages is important, it is more reactive to incidents that
have already occurred. With the new Be Bold program, it is assuming a position
of responsibility for reducing bullying rates through prevention techniques.
The introduction of community-based components of anti-bullying programs
is more familiar to nations such as Canada and most countries throughout Europe
as they emphasize and value community more than in the United States (Hayden
2006). In contrast, there is greater emphasis on individuality in the United States,
placing less emphasis on community (McPherson et al. 2006). For example, Klein
(2012) identified that the responses to bullying, and more important to school
shootings in the United States, focused on individualized protections or securities,
such as zero-tolerance policies and armed guards. While in Europe, the response
was a social consideration. Throughout Europe, following a school shooting,
many of the nations developed comprehensive responses, such as gun control as
an aspect of developing anti-bullying programs.
Still, this does not mean more comprehensive programs, involving community
groups, have not been implemented in the United States. For example, the Get
a Voice Project had students sending requests to stakeholders both inside and
outside of the school to become involved in changing the culture of the school
(for more in depth discussion see Klein 2012). While the program struggled
because of funding, the impetus to draw on the community focused the discussion
beyond individuals. Focusing on a specific group of bullied youth, Dan Savage
established the It Gets Better Project that works to inform LGBTQ youth that
homophobic bullying and sexual harassment experienced as a child will change
as they get older. While there has been some backlash with several students
committing suicide after posting on the site, the occurrence of these suicides falls
in line with raising awareness about bullying. Raising awareness about bullying
has been shown to increase reporting of bullying (Espelage and Swearer 2010).
Greater awareness gives voice to those kids who would not have had it prior to the
introduction of the program. From here, future programs have a better opportunity
to respond to those kids who need support. Concerning the kids connected with
the It Gets Better Project, their reactions, while tragic, was their ability to give
voice they did not have before. Projects such as this offer a place to gain support
and express concern. Future programs should relate back to this program, connect
to it if possible and fill the gaps that have been identified when we miss kids.
Criminal Justice
While the larger community needs to be involved, one important community
institution that is often affiliated with bullying intervention is the criminal justice
system. A study by the Bureau of Justice identified that within a 6 month period,
28% of children aged 1218 were bullied (Dinkes et al. 2007). A common
61
response to bullying, or simply violence at a school, is to rely on criminal justicestyle interventions. This includes metal detectors, armed guards and zero tolerance
policies (Brady et al. 2007), which are much more common within the United States
than in other countries, including throughout Europe. As Klein (2012) points out in
her discussion of school shootings, a comparative national response to shootings
in the United States was to implement more justice-based measures. Attempts at
protecting children by instituting practices that focus on stopping or punishing
bullies derives from an individualistic perspective (as discussed in Chapter 3) that
perceives bullies, or in this situation, school shooters as deviants who must be
corralled by limiting their access to the non-violent, normal individuals. Such
a perspective does little to address the cultural implications of these behaviors,
identifying them as social problems. This is not to claim that individualistic
responses have little place in combating bullying, as some have been shown to
be affective (see bully courts in chapter 5), just that an individualist response will
have little effect without a collective response to enact lasting change (Narveson
2002). What we are conveying is that responses that are limited in their impact
often derive from larger societal perspectives, necessitating a broader recognition
of the social concerns, at least in part when addressing the issue. Emphasizing
criminal justice measures also often serves to increase the fear level of students,
and not make them feel safer (Bachman et al. 2011). A collectivist view of violent
events confronts the issue as a social problem that should be combated through
cultural changes (May 1992). For example, Germany attempted to address the
social issues at the base of what helped to produce the behavior of the shooter,
such as gun control (Klein 2012).
Overall, relying predominantly on the criminal justice system as a form
of response does not reduce bullying. In the analysis of the comprehensive
implementation of police presence within a large urban school system in the United
States, researchers found that police presence had little impact on bullying. In fact,
it was noted that aggressive activity and threats increased after implementation
(Brady et al. 2007). Implementing criminal justice practices into schools can make
students feel as if they are in a prison and not a school, such as with Zero Tolerance
policies (Martinez 2009). In a commentary about the use of Zero Tolerance Policies
within school systems, it was concluded that prison policy rehashed as school
discipline policy does not take into account the context of situations (Casella
2003: 889). As Haney et al. (1973) displayed in the study on prisons, placing
individuals in an environment that treats them like a prisoner, will encourage
individuals to respond by acting in a role that is reflective of the environment.
Students have already begun to respond in this way, bringing weapons to school
to display power, with the intention of instilling fear in those who have bullied
them in the past (Klein 2012). Students are also being impacted in their everyday
interactions. For example, the label of informing a teacher has transitioned from
being called a tattle-tale to a snitch, borrowing a term from prisoners.
This is not to claim that the criminal justice system has no ability to reduce
bullying. In fact, comprehensive bullying programs often encourage developing
62
a relationship with the criminal justice system, such as when responding to more
extreme issues (Furniss 2000). While armed guards do not tend to instill greater
feelings of safety, school resource officers (SROs) have been identified as having
a positive impact on reducing bullying throughout a school (Jennings et al. 2011).
Such roles, while important, need to be implemented as a change to the culture
of the school to make it more inclusive. The conclusion drawn from the failed
implementation of police presence throughout a major urban school system was
that it was not inclusive in the culture. By not involving student input, it made
students feel it was not about supporting them (Brady et al. 2007). Borrowing
from community policing programs, it is not about the presence or threat of the
officer that has a positive impact on the culture. It is the community/school service
officers (CSO/SRO) interactions with students that establish a safe relationship
for bystanders or victims to approach and inform. The use of SROs should be part
of the larger cultural change that makes the community less accepting of bullying.
Perceiving of SROs as a part of the larger culture to help bring about change
engages a more collectivist perspective. In a study of 184 school resource officers in
Texas, it was found that those who were more integrated into the school community
and were implementing responses that were in conjunction with a whole-school
response to bullying had a more positive impact on bullying compared to those
who were more punitive in their responses to students and less integrated (RoblesPia and Denham 2012). Students should still be held responsible for their actions
but not as the focus of the use of SROs, but rather as the final aspect of addressing
bullying, for both collectivist and individualistic responses in the criminal justice
system can together have a positive impact (Mellema 2006).
In a broader response by the criminal justice system, because of recent legal
retribution against schools for not responding to instances of bullying, often
including cyber bullying (Hinduja and Patchin 2011), legislature have engaged
the issue. Previously, schools were concerned with responding because of freedom
of speech issues and the rights of school officials to respond to activities that occur
off campus (e.g. cyber bullying) (Stewart and Fritsch 2011). To offer schools
support for responding, 16 state legislatures in the United States have passed bills,
and six more have proposed laws (including a federal proposal) giving schools
the right, and in effect, the responsibility to take action against cyber bullying if
the bullying impacts the education of the student(s). To further address the issue,
11 states, along with Washington DC, have implemented laws that allow schools
to act in response to bullying that occurs off school grounds. Beyond these recent
laws, other existing legislation can be used to support victims of bullying, such as
in the United States, both the Protection from Harassment Act, 1997 or possibly a
Restraining Orders for continued harassment (Gillespie 2006). Such policies draw
on both a collectivist response that offers structure for schools to be more effective
in addressing bullying, along with a punitive, individualistic component for both
schools and students who fail to comply with the new laws.
63
Conclusion
Ultimately, it is not just about raising awareness, protecting victims or resocializing
bullies, as community involvement is about assuming a level of responsibility for
helping to reduce bullying in schools and being an integral part of a comprehensive
anti-bullying program. Assuming responsibility allows for programmatic
responses to extend beyond the direct impact of the intervention practices. For
example, we developed videos to be used in schools to raise awareness about
bullying with the intention of changing the culture (Migliaccio and Raskauskas
2013). Videos have been adopted and used by a number of programs outside
of school throughout the United States, including juvenile detention centers,
hospitals (for sexual harassment training for student volunteers) and young girl
advocacy groups. The intention for each may differ although likely much of
the focus is on raising awareness about bullying. The indirect impact is that the
children learn from such discussions that bullying is a social problem that is not
acceptable throughout the community. This knowledge can help raise awareness at
the schools. It also increases the number of adults with whom students can discuss
bullying experiences. They are, in effect, helping to change the culture, which, if
coordinated with a school would potentially have exponential effects.
Chapter 5
Whole-School Approach1
The Social Ecological Model systems are all interconnected, resulting in
simultaneous and complex interactions contributing to, or protecting from,
bullying and its negative effects (Orpinas et al. 2004; Smith et al. 1997). Keeping
this in mind, a successful response needs to address the contributions of all
stakeholders, e.g. students, teachers, staff, administrators, bus drivers, yard duties,
parents, police, and the larger community, as discussed in the previous chapter.
Educating each stakeholder is not all that needs to occur. It is necessary to make
changes not only in knowledge, but in policies and programs as well, to help
facilitate change in the interactions and ultimately the culture. So it is no surprise
that the most widely used, and arguably the most effective method, for addressing
the problem of bullying concentrates on multiple systems through the wholeschool approach.
As we have consistently argued throughout this book, there is an interactive
relationship that exists between the different levels (e.g. systems) in the Ecological
Model. The whole-school approach emphasizes the importance of engaging change
at all levels allowing for a collectively driven transformation throughout a school.
This does mean that modifications primarily at the group strata can change the
school culture. Relying on the interactions between students, however, to alter the
culture, as many schools have done, limits the adjustment that can occur. The culture
of a school resides simultaneously within the interactions between individuals and
the larger institution. While interactions among stakeholders perpetuate a bullying
culture (see Chapter 7), the policies contribute to the continuance of the culture,
as do the school environment and the social and educational programs. While
we are emphasizing the school in this chapter, the discussion extends beyond it,
highlighting intervention and prevention practices that can be enacted at all levels
to reduce bullying. In fact, this chapter is more heavily focused on the intervention
and prevention discussions than other chapters. The overemphasis on responses to
bullying in this chapter is because it is the school culture that we want to change,
and it is the school environment that schools have control over. This allows us to
engage the discussion of bullying as a social phenomenon along with intervention
and prevention practices, considering individuals, the institution and physical
environment as separate contributing factors.
1We would like to thank Professor Mathew Schmidtlein, PhD, a Professor of

Geography at Sacramento State University, for his contribution to mapping data analysis
discussed in this chapter.
66
The Whole-School Approach

Simply put the whole-school approach is a method that involves everyone in the
school to be part of the solution to the problem of bullying since everyone is
essentially part of the problem either through active or passive participation. It is
important that all stakeholders are expected to be responsible for helping to reduce
bullying at a school. Historically, the whole-school approach has emphasized three
specific goals that schools need to keep in mind when selecting actions (Arora et
al. 2002; Olweus 1993; Wong et al. 2011):
1. To establish a supportive environment, starting at the administration
down to the students, to create a positive and mutually supportive school
environment in which students can learn safely;
2. To implement an interactive curriculum in which students can develop skills
such as empathy, assertiveness, coping, and problem-solving strategies that
can facilitate their anger and conflict resolution;
3. To create a sense of partnership among teachers, students, parents, and
professional helpersall members of the school community that are key to
creating and maintaining change.
We suggest a fourth goal that encapsulates the larger cultural context, since
the previous three, while important, emphasize the interaction and individual
responsibilities involved in changing the culture. This fourth goal raises the point
of reference to the institutional level. We are not solely identifying classroom
engagement or positive affirmations toward students, but the school itself as an
entity that impacts the attitudes and behaviors of all stakeholders, and ultimately
the culture of the school.
4. To develop a safe and positive environment in which students can
effectively learn.
Achieving all of these goals will help to form a school that is comprised of
stakeholders who are aware of bullying and trust that everyone is willing to take
action to stop bullying and protect victims. This awareness and trust is essential
to the creation of a safe school climate since students willingness to disclose
bullying, report it or take action as bystanders is often hindered by a lack of
trust in school staff to intervene and support them effectively (Low et al. 2011;
Salmivalli 2010). Having trust and awareness allows students to feel responsible
for the events in their school, along with a desire to maintain a positive culture or
change a negative one. Similarly, trust by staff of being supported can increase
their ability to respond (Migliaccio 2015). Ultimately within this environment
there needs to be a coordinated effort to confront the issue and to establish this safe
environment, both emotionally and physically. To accomplish the goals, wholeschool approaches often include the following coordinated actions:
67
The development of a whole-school anti-bullying policy, which includes an

established communication protocol for addressing a situation.
The creation of a telling environment and the use of a range of
interventions to address incidents when they happen.
Recognition by all stakeholders, teachers in particular, of their role in
creating an anti-bullying ethos, including interactions with all other
stakeholders (students, staff, administration, parents, caregivers, and the
community).
The establishment and use of school and classroom anti-bullying curriculum
or other skill building program.
The development of an environment of connectivity to the school for all
students, and really any stakeholders.
As discussed in Chapter 1, the basic premise of such an undertaking is that
bullying is an intentional and purposeful act that is affected by the school climate,
while simultaneously sustaining it. The reason we reintroduce the intentionality of
bullying that encompasses its definition is to denote that students, and often adults,
are making choices to engage in the behavior because it is accepted within the
culture of the school. Each act, then recreates that culture, further solidifying it as
the appropriate course of engagement. Perceiving of it in this manner, bullying can
be controlled, provided that there is a strong commitment and willingness to work
together on the part of all those involved: school personnel, other professionals,
parents, and students (Olweus 1993; Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wong et al. 2011).
To stop bullying, two interactive facets must exist. First, the bullying must be
stopped and firm comprehensive action taken to ensure the safety of the victims
(Intervention). Second, the social acceptance of the behavior of the bullies and
victims must be changed (Prevention) (Orpinas et al. 2004). The bullies must
stop attacking other children and redirect their energy in more positive directions.
Victims must learn to be more assertive and to acquire the verbal and social skills
appropriate to their age and grade level (Orpinas and Horne 2006). Bystanders need
to change their behaviors so that they not only intervene but do not condone future
actions. And schools need to establish a positive, safe and healthy environment in
which students can learn. Through the coordinated activities that establish both
facets of a bullying program, only then can the goals of the whole-school approach
be reached.
Evidence of Effectiveness
Evidence suggests that whole-school interventions are the most effective means
to reduce bullying behavior (Rigby and Slee 2008; Smith and Ananiadou 2003;
Vreeman and Carroll 2007). Given that bullying is a systemic problem, it is
unlikely that a single-level program such as classroom curriculum alone could
provide an effective solution (Smith et al. 2004a; Vreeman and Carroll 2007).
68
The whole-school approach to preventing and intervening in bullying was

pioneered by the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (grades 310). The
program is designed to improve peer relationships, making the school a safer
place for all students through coordinated prevention and intervention efforts for
the whole school community. This program demonstrated reductions in bullying
behavior around 50% in Bergen, Norway (Olweus 1994; Vreeman and Carroll
2007). However, success of this magnitude has yet to be reproduced elsewhere
(Smith et al. 2004a). Adaptations of the Olweus Program have reported lower
levels of success or mixed results in Germany (Hanewinkel 2004), Belgium
(Stevens et al. 2002) and the United States (Bauer et al. 2007; Limber et al. 2004).
Furthermore, the Sheffield Project in England (Smith et al. 2004c; Whitney et
al. 1994) and the Seville Project in Spain (Ortega et al. 2004) have both shown
significant reductions in bullying with whole-school interventions similar to the
Olweus program.
In fact, most anti-bullying programs borrow from the notion of the wholeschool response to enact change in the culture of a school. For example, the
Targeting Bullying Program is an intervention program based on the Ecological
Model. This program for grades 59 reduces bullying through collaborative efforts
of stakeholders such as students, teachers, parents, and other school personnel.
The program is described in Swearer and Espelage (2003) and has been found to
be useful in raising awareness and preventing and reducing bullying. Similarly, the
Friendly Schools Program is a socio-ecological intervention targeting the entire
school, classroom, family, and individual students to reduce bullying behavior.
Using one of the stronger research designs to evaluate interventions, the results of
a randomized evaluation of Australian schools that followed Year 4 (89 years old)
students for three years, indicated that students who participated in the Friendly
Schools Program were significantly less likely to both observe bullying at 12, 24
and 36 months and be bullied after 12 and 36 months, as well as were significantly
more likely to report bullying after 12 months than comparison students. The
findings suggest whole-school programs that engage students in their different
social contexts appear to increase awareness, reduce the risk of students being
bullied, and increase student trust and likelihood of telling someone (Cross et
al. 2011).
The reasons why the whole-school approach is generally effective are because
the cornerstones of this model independently are all effective in reducing bullying
(even if only for the short term) but when used together and targeting multiple
levels or systems simultaneously it has more power to effect lasting change. The
cornerstones of this model are: awareness building, social responsibility, and
collective efficacy.
Awareness raising
A review by Pearce et al. (2011), examined the whole-school approach and
found that promoting awareness and understanding of bullying across the
school community is key in facilitating a common school culture that prevents
69
bullying. However, shared comprehension needs to be supported by professional

development and training for staff, curriculum for students, and education sessions
for families to enhance how the entire school works together to respond effectively
to incidents of bullying. Thats because the whole-school approach requires a
shared understanding of bullying as a problem for everyone involved as well as a
shared understanding of the different forms of bullying and what they look like.
Bully Busters (grades K8) for example, is designed to increase awareness about
bullying and increase teachers skills to respond to bullying (Horne et al. 2003).
Research has shown the program is effective in increasing knowledge and ability
to prevent and respond to bullying as well as a reduction in discipline referrals
(Orpinas and Horne 2006).
Social responsibility
The whole-school approach requires all community members examine their own
behavior, including students, teachers, other staff and parents. They need to ask
how their current behavior may be allowing or condoning bullying behavior and,
in turn, what they can do in the future to prevent it. Restorative justice described in
Chapter 3 and Method of Shared Concern (Pikas 2002; Rigby 2004) are programs
that emphasize social responsibility in bullying prevention. But social responsibility
is not solely placed at the feet of each stakeholder to accept and address. Policies,
programs and trainings need to be enacted to inform each group of their role in
the bullying culture, and ultimately their responsibility in preventing it. This is
affiliated with the above discussion of awareness, for the stakeholders need to be
informed not only what bullying is but how they can respond to it (and that they
need to do so). For example, students have consistently expressed that bullying
should be addressed by teachers and staff, often unaware of their own bystander
role in responding to and reducing bullying. Educating students on this aspect of
a bullying culture is important to involving students (Migliaccio and Raskauskas
2013). Even more relevant, teachers may be aware of what bullying is but until you
educate them fully on their role and why it is important for them to respond, they
may be less likely to do so (Migliaccio 2015). This also includes administration in
creating policies to address issues, implementing support programs that challenge
bullying behaviors and becoming an integral and involved member of the positive
school community.
Collective efficacy
Collective efficacy refers to the combination of mutual trust and social cohesion
among members of a group that predicts their willingness to intervene for the
common good (Williams and Guerra 2011). In schools this can be simplified as
children working together for the greater good, a general belief that everyone
canand shouldtake action when necessary. It includes social relationships,
both the interconnections among people that constitute the social network and the
shared trust and support for collective action that lead to seeing group interests as
mutually beneficial (Williams and Guerra 2011). It also is based on informal social
70
control; this is a perceived group responsibility for protecting and promoting the
common good, or potentially for discouraging action when something occurs. The
expectation that peers or teachers will intervene on behalf of a victim depends on
the groups shared values (Sampson et al. 1999). Collective efficacy rests on the
assumption that social networks are a necessary starting point, but it adds that
group members are engaged, in other words membership is an active role and not
a passive one (Williams and Guerra 2011). The whole-school approach requires
a shared resolve to eliminate bullying, identification of bullying problems within
the school and community, and a belief that each stakeholder can prevent it by
taking action.
Collective efficacy is key to involving the whole school in intervention.
The informal social control within schools developed by regular interactions
between staff, teachers and students create an environment where the group can
be mobilized to stop bullying. However, more often than not students receive
implicit messages from the group that they should not intervene in bullying.
Williams and Guerra (2011) found with an analysis of 7,299 youth in grades 58
(ages 1016) that greater perceptions of collective efficacy were associated with
behavior change from fall to spring. Specifically, bullying perpetration reduced
as collective efficacy increased. Group cohesion and mutual trust had the most
substantial effects on frequency of bullying.
Collective efficacy alone, however, will not have extensive impact on bullying
rates. In order for collective efficacy to truly be effective in bullying prevention
and intervention, it should be enacted within a culture that opposes bullying and
does not punish those who seek to stop it. The awareness and consistent messages
that bullying is not acceptable and everyone is expected to do their part to stop
it contributes to the persistence of a collective efficacy. Another component
that can influence the effectiveness of collective efficacy is student school
connectivity. Ahmed (2008) found in Bangladesh with 1,452 children in grades
710 that students who scored higher on school connectedness were more likely to
intervene in bullying. They concluded that establishing a climate in schools where
students have mutual respect and shared responsibility are key for promoting
bystander intervention, since students in these schools were more likely to accept
responsibility. While connection to school and positive relationships with teachers
who are caring and responsible is important, the key to collective efficacy is that
peers, as well as teachers can be trusted to offer support when needed (Williams
and Guerra 2011). Without that, connection to the group is diminished and thus
collective efficacy is limited.
Bully courts use collective efficacy for moderating problems by putting the
responsibility for addressing bullying in the hands of students. Bully courts are
gatherings of students that hear concerns of peers and facilitate problem solving/
punishment. With bully courts, any child can lodge a complaint about another
child in the class who has done something bad to him or her. Complaints must
be in writing and deposited in a special box or turned in to a specified location.
Representatives are elected or appointed to serve on the bully court who hears
71
student-to-student complaints. First, both parties promise to tell the truth. Then
the complainant describes the problem and the accused child rebuts. Both children
can produce witnesses and members of the court may ask questions. The involved
students are then sent outside while the court discusses the case. A vote is taken
to decide if the accused is guilty or innocent. If guilty, the court decides on the
punishment, with the teacher acting as moderator to ensure that the meeting is
orderly and the punishment an appropriate one that can be completed in the school
setting. If the accused is judged to be innocent, the complainant must apologize
(Yoshikawa-Cogley 1995). What bully courts emphasize is the importance
of social agreement by all school representatives, in particular students, but
also school officials, concerning the acceptability of bullying behaviors. It is a
collective response to the social issue, as opposed to placing the responsibility on
the individual student to overcome bullying. The court will also reflect the values of
the group and is a form of social control, so it will be most effective in conjunction
with group values that discourage bullying and encourage social action.
Bully courts also allow for a diversity of outcomes dependent on the context of
the event, as defined by the jury. This presents an alternative form of punishment
from Zero Tolerance policies (see Chapter 4 and below for further discussion),
which are more widely practiced in schools. Zero Tolerance policies are determined
by the administration, and, as defined, applied the same to all situations and for
all students. Without even considering the misapplication of Zero Tolerance
policies, there is no flexibility in the use of the policy. When alternatives should
be considered, then it goes against the policy. Bully courts offer an alternative that
allows for greater variation in the experiences that influences the outcome, which
includes a punishment. Finally, bully courts introduce an important component
of combating bullying, which is student voice that increases student connectivity
(Jeffrey et al. 2001; Olweus 1993).
Implementation of the Whole-School Approach
Pearce and colleagues (2011) reviewed the existing studies and meta-analyses
regarding program effectiveness and confirmed the usefulness of whole-school
approach to prevent bullying/cyber bullying, as well the need of more support for
schools to use it effectively. In their review they identified strategies that guided
successful efforts to reduce bullying using a whole-school approach. The strategies
and indicators are listed in Table 5.1, below.
Common problems in the implementation of this model are that it requires
promotion between multiple levels of the organization and requires buy-in at all
levels so everyone is working together. It is important to note that implementation
of any new program requires training of staff and obtaining buy-in from
stakeholders (Low et al. 2011). Programs often require time away from other
activities for educators so they should be introduced slowly to avoid overload.
This is important to consider because without change in one level or area it will
72
Table 5.1
Strategies identified in successful whole-school programs

(adapted from Pearce et al. 2011)
Strategies
Indicators
Building capacity for action
Valuing committed leadership

Planning for system support
Mobilizing resources
Compatibility with school community
needs.
Creating supportive school culture
Foster positive school relationships

Classroom practice and environment is
warm and supportive
Peer group dynamics.
Proactive policies, procedures, and

practices
Policy development
and implementation
Behavior expectation approaches
Orientation and transition
Targeted student and family support
Addressing school community

understanding and competencies
Staff professional training

Student learning through curriculum
Key understanding and skills for
families
Creating a protective school environment
Physical school attributes

Adequate supervision
Supportive staff and activities
School-family-community partnerships
Engaging Families
Working with the wider community
and service providers.
be difficult to maintain change in other areas. We need to perceive of each level as

interrelated and reliant on the other, meaning each succeeds based on the support,
and ultimately success of the other aspects. If teachers are not given adequate
time and support for training, they are more likely to feel inadequate in their
understanding and ultimately response to bullying (Holt and Keyes 2003; Yoon
2004). Similarly, if administrators are not trained in their role, or do not accept
their part in the culture, then their actions toward teachers, and even students, may
perpetuate a culture of bullying no matter what buy-in you get from others (de Wet
2007). Training is often the first step to changing group values and engendering
collective efficacy. This is why a comprehensive response is needed. Even
incremental changes at all levels and with all groups can produce greater change
than an overarching change at one level with one group.
73
Diversity of Experiences: No School Program is the Same

The whole-school approach has been applied all over the world. It has been
evaluated in many countries including the USA, Italy, Belgium, England,
Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Germany, Australia, France, and Finland among
others (for review, see Richard et al. 2012; Smith et al. 2004a; Smith et al.
2004b). While commonalities have been noted throughout the world, including
that physical and verbal/relational bullying, school climate variables of school
security and the quality of student-teacher relationships emerged as the strongest
predictors of bullying, the level of importance in each country, and really each
school differed.
Studies in Europe and Scandinavia show that some schools seem to have
higher bullying rates than others. For example, schools in socially disadvantaged
areas (for further discussion, see Chapter 4) seem to have higher bullying rates
(Farrington 1993). In New Zealand, schools are divided into deciles, or ten
bands based on the affluence of the neighborhood with higher deciles being more
affluent neighborhoods. Raskauskas and colleagues (2010) found that decile was
related to bullying in schools with lower decile schools reporting higher rates
(for further discussions about class, see Chapter 6). Simply, no school experience
surrounding bullying is the same, which means the implementation of the wholeschool approach will be dissimilar from other schools, thus necessitating a
differential response.
Each school has its own collective values and informal social control that must
be addressed to use collective efficacy to create lasting change. In other words,
a program in a box or a one-size-fits-all model will not work the same for
different schools. For example, every school transition is accompanied by initial
increases in bullying and victimization as dominance hierarchies within peer
groups are being formed or re-established after the entry of new students into the
environment (Pellegrini et al. 2010). Still, in a study of United States rural middle
school students attending either non-transition schools (K8) or transition schools
(6/78), it was found that there was a reduced bullying in transition schools
compared to non-transition schools (Farmer et al. 2011). What the researchers
identified is that in rural schools there is less change over time, so remaining in
the same school maintained social hierarchies and power dynamics for greater
periods of time, increasing the likelihood of bullying occurring. This finding
was not true for urban or suburban schools. The difference compared to urban or
suburban schools is the size of rural schools. This difference allows transition to
assist with reducing bullying because there is a greater likelihood for teachers to
be aware of or witness such dynamics and to connect with students, either because
of community involvement or student-teacher ratios.
Despite variances in school factors, the whole-school approach can be tailored
to be successful. The whole-school approach requires moving beyond traditional
notions of a teacher being responsible for bullying lessons within the confines of
the classroom but instead becoming part of a system-wide approach that identifies
74
the schools unique issues and uses collective efficacy to respond to them. For
example, a program can start by involving all stakeholders in the planning of
bullying prevention and intervention. Principal one in the model is focused on
using existing evidence to teach students, staff, and teachers about the reality of
bullying and dispelling myths such as kids who are bullied deserve it or all bullies
come from bad homes. This is often accomplished through the use of pre-existing
evidence-based curriculum to help educate stakeholders about bullying and how
to respond appropriately. Principal two is about involving all stakeholders in the
planning of bullying prevention and intervention. The program should create
informal social control to put actions in place for both preventing future bullying
and intervening in current bullying at all levels: bystanders, office staff, other staff
including lunch duties, cafeteria workers, custodians, etc., teachers, administrators,
and parents. This is accomplished through opening dialogue between members of
each group, where each members contribution is listened to, valued, and treated
as equal. Asking students to work with teachers, administrators and other staff
to identify key problem areas, factors that they think contribute to bullying, and
helping co-construct responses helps develop a program that everyone sees as
realistic, addressing the issues specific to their school. Finally, have clear outcomes
identified and a means for assessing whether methods of intervention/prevention
are working. This will usually include assessment of both baseline and outcomes
measures to see whether stakeholders report that bullying and victimization have
been reduced.
A Variation: Restorative Whole-School Approach
An interesting variation to the whole-school approach is the Restorative WholeSchool Approach (RWSA) which combines the whole-school approach with the
principals of restorative justice (Braithwaite et al. 2003; Hopkins 2004; Morrison
2007). This model is based on findings that assigning blame and individual
accountability to bullies not only can be ineffective at resolving the conflicts but
can also further the deterioration of the relationship between bullies and victims
(Wong et al. 2011). The RWSA approach does not focus on short-term punishment
but on changing group values to build a long-term positive school environment
to prevent bullying and restore relationships (Suckling and Temple 2002). The
framework embraces intervention strategies and tactics for developing a shared
ethos among all parties in schools and uses collective efficacy to develop an allinclusive anti-bullying policy to create a safe learning environment by addressing
risk factors conducive to bullying (Arora et al. 2002; Orpinas and Horne 2006).
Van Ness and Strong (2006) identify three principles through which a restorative
system is based:
1. Victims, offenders, and the community can recover from the behavior or
crime. Collective efficacy should reflect the opportunity for change.
75
2. All parties should have the opportunity to be actively involved in the justice
process as early and as fully as possible.
3. The relative roles and responsibilities of government and community in
promoting justice, order, and peace need to be considered. That is, instead
of rigid legal procedures to punish offenders, offenders should be
appropriately shamed and held accountable for their wrongdoings through
an informal, yet human and voluntary process and at the same time making
reparation to the victim.
Restorative Justice programs share some similarities with bully courts, such as
the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including an active presence of victim,
bully and community, a determination of the extent of the event and appropriate
responses to the bullying experience that are required of the bully. Still, they are
distinctly different as Restorative Justice focuses on the needs of the individuals
and the community in general, while bully courts emphasize the meting out of
punishment for the offender. While both involve community members, Restorative
Justice does so in an interactive format as opposed to sitting in judgment over
the proceedings. Bully courts, in a sense, focus on punitive outcomes, while
Restorative Justice programs emphasize development and support for all parties
with the intention of healing all stakeholders. This is not to claim that bully courts
are less important, as they have been shown to have an impact in reducing bullying
through tapping into the collective efficacy and empowering the group to take
action, but rather restorative justice addresses bullying through collaboration,
rather than confrontation, while still holding bullies accountable for their actions
but not in such an overarching manner as Zero Tolerance Policies utilize.
Wong (2004 cited in Wong et al. 2011) suggested that as part of the RWSA, it is
important to establish a set of long-term anti-bullying policies, procedures, and a
curriculum that addresses bullying in school. It is also important to actively inform
all parties of the existence and extent of the problem, and to train teachers, parents,
and senior students in handling school bullying. Likewise, collective efficacy
should be turned toward intervention through awareness and shared values and
students should be provided with training opportunities to enhance their social
skills and emotional control, and school counselors or social workers should offer
specific anti-bullying programs. After a bullying incident, mediation meetings or
restorative conferences are appropriate tools to resolve conflicts between bullies
and victims. However, until all individuals have accepted the importance of a
meeting and attend willingly, just as all individuals need to accept the responsibility
for their actions, such conferences should not occur. Mediation practices, such as
conflict resolution or peer mentoring are not effective in combating bullying as
stand-alone practices. The limitation for such intervention strategies are due to
the fact that mediation practices are based on the assumption of equal standing
of the individuals involved, focusing on a social disagreement. For bullying, in
contrast, the conflict resides around the power expressions over others. Bullying is
76
the social disagreement. Only within the context of a whole-school response can
mediation practices be effective in helping to reduce bullying.
In Hong Kong, the RWSA was used for an intervention in 4 high schools by
Wong and colleagues (2011). They conducted measures at the schools before
and after a 15 month intervention, one of which implemented the whole RWSA
program, two of which partially implemented the program, which in practice
meant that they used the whole-school components but did not use the restorative
justice parts, and one school which did not use the program and served as a control
school. They found that the school that implemented the whole RWSA program
reported significant reductions in bullying and increases in empathy and selfesteem compared to the partial implementation and control schools.
This is not to claim that RWSA is for every school. In fact, what we are
advocating is that the structure and dynamics of the whole-school response needs
to be relevant to the specific school in which it is being enacted. Returning to the
discussion at the beginning, a whole-school response encompasses all stakeholders
and all levels of the school culture (and beyond into the community when available
and relevant). By educating all stakeholders on their roles and responsibilities, and
connecting it to group dynamics and social expectations, the culture that accepts
bullying will change. How a school implements the whole-school response, the
programs that are utilized, and the manner in which it is rolled out will differ for
each school based on the needs of the school.
This is why it is important that, in order to adequately and appropriately
respond, schools must first identify the issues their constituents are experiencing.
Ultimately, surveys of students have been the most common method of doing this.
In fact, simply surveying students has been shown to increase connectivity of
students to school. The students feel that safety is an important concern of the staff,
disrupting myths about teacher perspective (Garbarino and DeLara 2002), as well
as also feeling that their voice matters. We also advocate for surveys of all staff
members, or potentially focus groups if that is possible. In depth interviews with
administrators are important, as well as a completion of a school environmental
checklist (see Figure 5.1: School environmental checklist) to recognize the school
dynamics that help to produce or reduce bullying. More important, we suggest a
mapping analysis of school bullying. This can accompany a survey conducted by
students as a means for better comprehension of where bullying is occurring and
in what manner.
Mapping helps to spatially identify the unowned spaces that students have
assumed social responsibility and power, such as bathrooms, playgrounds and
hallways (Espelage and Swearer 2010). This is why it is important, in educating
staff, to be present in such locations. A study conducted in the United States of
the 2007 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey
found that of the numerous safety measures implemented in schools (hallway
supervision, metal detectors, ID badges), the only one that was shown to
consistently reduce continued victimization was adult presence in hallways and
general areas (Blosnich and Bossarte 2011). To limit the possibility of bullying in
77
Please indicate whether or not you observe the following while walking around your
school site.
1. Fences/Gates
Y
N
Dont Know

a. Locked during school hours
Y
N
Dont Know
2. Identifiable Security Officer
Y
N
Dont Know

a. Number ____
3. Visible video cameras
Y
N
Dont Know

a. Number ____

b. Locations _______________________________________________
4. Visible graffiti
Y
N
Dont Know

a. If yes, rate extent
High
Medium Low
5. Litter on campus
Y
N
Dont Know

a. If yes, rate extent
High
Medium Low
6. Are the following displayed/posted/visible:

a. Dress Code
Y
N
Dont Know

b. Student Code of Conduct
Y
N
Dont Know

c. Student Achievements
Y
N
Dont Know

d. Central Office Student Feedback

Box
Y
N
Dont Know

e. Posters Regarding Bullying
Y
N
Dont Know

f. Posters Regarding Sexual

Harassment
Y
N
Dont Know

g. Posters Regarding Molestation/

Sexual Abuse
Y
N
Dont Know

h. Student Work or Arts
Y
N
Dont Know
7. Are posted materials in different languages? Y
N
Dont Know
8. Is a common area for students available?
Y
N
Dont Know

a. List common areas (such as benches, tables, vending machines, fields,

etc.)

b. Are common areas supervised?
Y
N
Dont Know
9. Is a space for parents available?
Y
N
Dont Know
10. Does office staff greet people as they come
in?
Y
N
Dont Know
11. Do you observe the principal greeting
students?
Y
N
Dont Know
12. Do you observe teachers greetings students? Y
N
Dont Know
13. Please note anything else you observe that may influence sense of safety in the
space below:
Completed by: ______________________________
Figure 5.1
School environmental checklist
Date: __________________
78
these spaces, which occur often during free periods, we suggest opening specific
classrooms during open periods (lunch, before and after school). Designated
classrooms, or safe rooms, allow students who feel isolated and marginalized to
have a place to spend their free time. These students often feel connected to those
classrooms, especially as other students spend time there, further connecting these
students to school.
Mapping Data
Mapping a school not only helps to identify bullying locations, or hot spots
but also helps researchers and educators to focus their assessment and analysis
of the school physical environment to note why certain locations are identified
as hot spots. As part of the United States study, 731 4th6th grade students at
nine different schools completed a school map to identify if and where bullying
occurred, both personally and to others. Having students specify locations offers
greater validity to the locality of bullying experiences (Dunn 2007), although it
loses some reliability to the claims because of a loss of scale in terms of participant
understanding and continuity (Harris and Weiner 1998). This is called Public
Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS), which uses Geographic
Information System (GIS) to analyze student identified bullying locations.
Bullying Throughout Schools
In general, using the mapping data, we were able to identify consistent issues
throughout the schools. In particular, the findings from the mapping data confirmed
previous research that bullying commonly occurs in bathrooms, hallways and
playgrounds, or any location that is not commonly occupied by school staff
(Blosnich and Bossarte 2011), what have been termed unowned locations can also
be referenced as hot spots (Ratcliffe et al. 2011). These locations are consistent
with the box in Chapter 3 which identified such unowned spaces as being the
most frequently identified locations for being bullied both in NZ and the USA
samples. Furthermore, students throughout the schools regularly identified an
existence of bullying, i.e. few students claimed there was no bullying on their
campus. In fact, of all nine schools, there was a total of only 117 students who
identified no bullying on the maps, or 16% of the total number of students
identified that no bullying had occurred, which was fairly consistent throughout
the schools.
Most students who reported bullying identified multiple locations, with an
average of 5.36 cited locations of bullying per student, regardless if they were
a victim or bystander. Students who had been victimized expressed a greater
number of locations, on average (6.7) in comparison to those who only witnessed
bullying incidences (3). Simply, students who were bullied were more likely to be
aware of locations on campus where bullying occurred, even locations they did
79
not experience personally. Furthermore, of the students who only identified one
location for bullying in a school, the majority of those students were bystanders,
with an average of less than one of those students being a victim. In other words,
students who were bullied were more likely than bystanders to be aware of and/or
have experienced bullying at a greater number of locations.
Landscapes of Bullying: School 1
To model how mapping a school can focus assessment and analysis, we present
examples from two schools. The first school is an elementary school (K6), which
had 56 4th6th grade students (27% of the students completed the maps) complete
the surveys. It should be noted that there was a mixed grade (46) classroom at the
school. Of all of the students, there were 7 who claimed that they were unaware of
any places in which bullying had occurred in the past six months.
While the maps confirm the commonly identified locations where bullying
occurs (restrooms/bathrooms, cafeteria, playground, hallways; see Figure 5.2:
Map of school bullying points, below), it also is clear that it is not all bathrooms,
hallways or playgrounds, but rather specific localities at the school. For example,
Bathroom 1, located on the right side of the school, is heavily identified as a
bullying site, while Bathroom 2 near the cafeteria does not display any incidences
of bullying, even though bullying occurs in the cafeteria. The maps more clearly
reflect where bullying occurs and not just general ideas. This not only aids schools
in addressing bullying but also gives a context about bullying for researchers
potentially including the environment as a factor that increases bullying in one
location but limits it in another.
What is even more compelling is when we evaluate the density2 of the bullying
points (see Figure 5.3: Map of school bullying density, below), which displays the
connection between different bullying locations.
As reflected through the density map, the bullying that occurred within
Bathroom 1 did not extend directly outside of the restroom, much less down the
adjacent hallway. While the map does not explicitly clarify why this occurred,
it does accentuate these points of interest that help to focus future research. The
higher level of bullying that occurs in Bathroom1, but not outside of the bathroom
may be related to access for students, structure of the school or policies that increase
student activity in that restroom during times that are less monitored by adults.
The results of the density map also indicate that of the classes that were
surveyed, bullying was most prevalent in Rooms 14 and 15, while less prevalent
in Room 16, all of which are adjacent to one another. Similarly, there is a much
2To perform a density analysis, a geographic area is divided into a set of grid cells,
and the number of events (in this case reported bullying incidents) per unit area that fall
within a fixed distance of each grid cell is calculated. For the bullying analysis, a kernel
density function was used to investigate the distributions of bullying locations, with darker
colors indicating a greater concentration of bullying: bullying hot spots.
80
Figure 5.2
Map of school bullying points
higher display of bullying in Room 18 compared to Room 17. Why might these
differences occur? They may be due to classroom management techniques of the
teacher, class, school, or location characteristics. For example, students in all
three grades identified bullying occurring in Room 18, which is the mixed grade
classroom. Having multiple ages together may contribute to the likelihood of
bullying, but future research would need to evaluate this. What is revealed through
Figure 5.3
81
Map of school bullying density
the mapping is that bullying persists at a greater level in specific rooms, and not
in all rooms, identifying that characteristics of classrooms influence the levels
of bullying.
What is also discovered through the density analysis of bullying is that there
exists a possible relationship between bullying inside the classroom and bullying
outside of the classroom. This is also referred to as the diffusion of bullying
82
beyond centrally located hot spots, since bullying is spread out rather than
concentrated (Murray and Roncek 2008: 202). As can be noted in Figure 5.2, the
bullying that persists in the adjacent playground is more fixated around the front of
classroom 18 and less so around classroom 17. What can be inferred is that there
is a correlation between the bullying that exists in the classroom and the bullying
that occurs outside of it. This is not to claim causality. Instead, what this reveals
is that bullying locations relate to one another. While, as with the other findings,
future research would be needed to be able to explain causality, what the maps do
convey is that spatial dynamics may contribute to the existence of bullying within
specific locations. For example, if a teacher is less inclined to stop bullying, then
not only will bullying persist within the classroom but also bullying may be more
likely to occur in locations that the faculty member is more likely to monitor, such
as directly outside of his or her classroom.
Landscapes of Bullying: School 2
Mapping can also convey findings concerning bullying experiences. As noted,
some classes had higher rates of bullying (see Figure 5.4: Classroom comparison
of victim versus bystander bullying density: Top: Rooms 16 and 18) compared
to other classrooms (Room 15). But in a different consideration of classroom
bullying, it is more common for there to be higher instances of bystander reports
of bullying (or at least equal number) to those of victim reports. As can be noted
in Room 18 (see Figure 5.4: Classroom comparison of victim versus bystander
bullying density: top), eight victims identified having been bullied but who were
unaware others were being bullied in the same location. These same students did
note bullying of others (as well as themselves) in other areas of campus, so it is not
about a lack of awareness of bullying of others.
In that same classroom, only two students identified the existence of others
being bullied (see Figure 5.4: Classroom comparison of victim versus bystander
bullying density: bottom). Neither of the two bystanders were victims. In fact, one
was a 6th grade student, while all of the other students who identified bullying in
this classroom were 4th grade students.
First, this illustration clarifies the hidden atmosphere of bullying. While
research has shown that teachers only witness about one third of all bullying
events, this suggests that many victims are also unaware of the bullying that is
occurring within the same room that they are experiencing it. Furthermore, this
disparity leads to the conclusion that relational aggression is likely occurring in
some form, as it appears to be hidden from these students.
While mapping helps to focus school response, there will likely be a redistribution of bullying locations once staff have identified and monitored bullying
hot spots. The redistributed bullying may possibly occur at lower rates than at the
previous location as there will likely be a change in the culture of the school, in
particular, increased intervention from bystanders, as has been shown to occur
in studies of neighborhood crime (Green 1995). This means that the potential to
Figure 5.4
83
Classroom comparison of victim versus bystander

bullying density
reduce bullying through continued hot spot monitoring, using mapping to focus
observation, will exponentially reduce bullying throughout a school, changing
bystander response and ultimately the culture of the school.
Whole-School Approach Components
A whole-school response, as stated above, will look different for each school in
terms of the specifics. But each school, as discussed throughout the text, should
entail certain components to respond to each level, all of which work together to
influence the school climate (Richard et al. 2012). We briefly identify each level
and why it is important, as well as possible examples of programs that have been
created to do this. Most of these programs are being discussed elsewhere in the
text, so we will only highlight them here and explain their role in the wholeschool response.
School Environmental Factors
At the outset of any whole-school response, it is essential to have a policy and code
of conduct that changes the school climate. A policy should include a definition of
84
bullying, how bullying is reported, clear enforceable sanctions (connected to an

established school code of conduct), support for victims, and training for prevention
efforts. A clear policy helps to set anti-bullying and pro-tolerance values on which
collective efficacy for culture change can be built. A code of conduct is a wholeschool disciplinary policy with a clearly stated set of rules for behavior in and
around the school, effectively communicated to all students, and enforced without
exception. For violations of the code, non-physical sanctions such as deprivation
of privileges should be used (Olweus 1993; Swearer et al. 2009). Such a policy
is included in the school factors because it extends beyond the other levels and
exists at the institutional level. More important, it sets the tone for the rest of the
practices and programs. In fact, as the policy is designed, programs should be
considered for how issues are addressed in relation to the new policy.
One policy that has been used throughout the United States and Canada is a
Zero Tolerance Policy (this policy has not been practiced much beyond North
America). This policy, however, has been identified as being ineffective when it
comes to bullying (Martinez 2009; Stein 2003), as it is implemented inconsistently,
and what is regularly perceived as unfairly (APAZTKF 2008; Holloway 2001).
A natural experiment of an urban school district evaluated the expansion of zero
tolerance policies (Hoffman 2014). The study found that African American students
were disproportionately impacted, increasing the number of their expulsions over
white students, as well as expanded the average number of suspension days,
furthering the difference between white and black student number of days lost.
Furthermore, there has been little to no research identifying its effectiveness
in reducing bullying. Even the American Bar Association suggested that Zero
Tolerance Policies should not be used in schools (Henault 2001). Suspension and
expulsion, which are primary aspects of a Zero Tolerance Policy, are useful but
not to be used as the primary practice for addressing bullying. Automatic removal
from school does little to address the culture of bullying, as it educates everyone in
the school that power can be used as a means of control. Not to mention, it limits
the ability to educate bullies about appropriate behaviors, especially since the
connection to school is critical in reducing violence (APAZTKF 2008), and most
bullies are merely acting a part of the culture in which they exist (Martinez 2009).
Instead, such actions should be utilized as a component of a more flexible policy of
discipline and behavior in a school (Stader 2004). In fact, Teske (2011) concluded
in his analysis of an alternative, multi-disciplinary approach to school aggression,
as opposed to Zero Tolerance policies, that using more flexible responses, along
with community resources dramatically reduced suspensions and had a positive
impact on student outcomes.
Along with the creation of a policy is the public posting of the policy and
consequences if not followed, including both in the student handbooks that are
given to students (and their parents) and public display on the campus (office and
classrooms). While it gives students easier access to information about policies, it
is more about the public declaration of the anti-bullying stance of the school. As
with any program, we do not claim that such a policy will automatically change
85
the culture of a school, but coupled with changes at other levels, should produce
culture change.
Public display also emphasizes the importance of school environment and their
influence on stakeholder attitudes and behaviors. The physical school environment
has been shown to influence bullying rates (Johnson 2009). Studies have shown
that cleaner schools tend to display more positive environment, which contribute to
students feelings of safety (McLoughlin et al. 2002). Similarly a study in England
found that school climate has a tremendous impact on feeling safe and rates of
bullying, including issues of orderliness and cleanliness (Mortimore 1995). In
particular, it has been noted that the presence of graffiti (non-sanctioned) increases
the likelihood of bullying (Wilcox et al. 2006). What helps increase a feeling of
safety for students in their contribution to the school is not just a clean school,
but their role in it, such as cleaning days/groups. Studies show that schools that
display student work may have greater student connectivity which could reduce
bullying rates (Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wilson 2004).
Classroom Changes
While changes in the classroom environment can occur in a myriad of ways,
there are two key components that can be introduced in the classroom that
contribute to reducing bullying. First, explicit rules for behavior should be clearly
identified and reviewed with students concerning treatment of one another. Along
with this is consistency with the rules by teachers, which helps to lower school
violence (McNeely and Falci 2004). Consistency maintains a sense of fairness
among students (Santinello et al. 2011) and creates that informal social control,
contributing to an increase in bystander response to bullying (Blain-Arcaro et al.
2012; Ttofi et al. 2008). As with the school policies, the rules should be posted in
the classroom. If it is possible, student voice should be included in the enactment
of such rules, especially for older students. The more voice students have, the
greater connectivity they will have with the school, which, as identified earlier,
influences the school culture (Raskauskas et al. 2010; Salmivalli 2010).
The other important aspect of classroom changes is to establish time during
class each week to discuss bullying issues. While teachers are consistently
concerned about the loss of classroom time, especially with the rising demands for
student learning, research has shown that regular time spent discussing bullying
issues in the classroom increases even more education time (Salmivalli et al.
2010). Bullying classroom meetings should not be lectures but discussions among
students about rules, issues and/or responses to bullying. Teachers should facilitate
classroom discussions, using related materials to help do so. For example, in our
study of a short video followed by a teacher-lead classroom discussion, student
awareness of bullying and their role as bystanders in changing it increased
dramatically (Migliaccio and Raskauskas 2013).
86
Data Box 5.1Bullying on the bus

Bullying on the school bus can be a problem for many children. Raskauskas (2005)
did a video analysis of school bus rides in a USA school district that already had buses
fitted with cameras and found approximately 1.7 bullying incidents per bus ride. Fuller
buses were found to have more bullying and more severe incidents than less full buses.
The majority of incidents happened when students were getting on or off the bus when
the bus driver was distracted or off the bus. The authors recommendation was that
additional supervision, hired or volunteer, was needed to intervene in bullying while
the bus driver was driving or helping children cross the street.
One bus in the above study had significantly less bullying incidents than others.
A close examination of this drivers behavior revealed that he engaged students in
games, activities, and was teaching them a second language during bus rides. This
included giving them tasks to do while he was off the bus loading and unloading,
like ordering themselves in terms of whose houses were closes-farthest from the
current stop or practicing their new Spanish words. When bad behavior occurred he
immediately identified the student who had instigated it by name and told them to stop,
even threatening, on occasion when the student objected, that the student and their
parents were free to review the video tape of the ride to see whether he was wrong.
The driver built a bus culture where children were engaged but also a culture in which
it was clear that wrong doing would not be allowed.
A survey conducted with 66 bus drivers from that district (35% male and 65%
female) found that drivers see children make fun of others an average of 4 times per
week (average of 2 times for physical bullying, 1.5 times taking things from others,
3 times use of cell phone or text message to take harassing pictures, and 2 times
deliberately excluding students or refusing them a seat.)
In addition, those who agreed with the statement I know good techniques for
managing behavior reported less discipline problems on their buses. The most
effective strategies identified by drivers were (a) learning students names, (b) talking
to students about behavior, (c) showing respect to students, (d) recognizing good
behavior as well as bad, and (e) assigned seating or seating patterns that help
driver visibility or keep groups separate like having younger grades sit in the front.
Additionally, those who agree with the statement I feel close to students on my bus
reported less bullying. Feeling supported by the school district, able to talk to and work
with principals, and having clear policies for addressing behavior were associated with
fewer discipline referrals. This highlights a common theme for bus drivers, which was
the importance of the relationship between the bus driver and the schools.
Staff Education
While teachers are on the frontlines of interaction and have been identified as
having a profound impact on bullying rates (Blain-Arcaro et al. 2012; Ttofi et
al. 2008), they are not the only adults who interact with students. As identified
above, one of the prominent components of the whole-school approach is to
raise awareness throughout the school, which means educating all staff, not
just teachers. All staff need to be educated on what bullying is, how to identify
87
it and appropriate ways to intervene. Furthermore, they should be made aware

of the protocols for responding to and reporting bullying, with clear lines of
communication to delineate contacts and information sources (OMalley 2009).
This will clarify for all staff, including teachers, not only what to do, which is
a common limitation to responding (Holt and Keyes 2003; Yoon 2004) but also
informing them they will be supported when they do respond. This support is
important to increase the responsibility they take in their reactions to bullying
(Migliaccio 2015). This training will also help build teachers collective efficacy
for taking action. Along with education, offering resources to aid in continued
development of anti-bullying programs that impact interactions throughout the
school, as well as to help in working with the other stakeholders (i.e. parents and
students) will enhance the responses by staff as well as further expand the antibullying culture that is promoted.
While all staff should receive education about the general ideas of bullying
along with specific training concerning issues relevant to their experiences when
interacting with students, it is administrator education that is imperative. As
discussed earlier, without administrative support, programs are less able to reduce
bullying (Orpinas and Horne 2006; Rigby et al. 2004). Educating administrators
on not only their role as facilitators of programs and teacher support but also
their specific role in combating the bullying culture is an important aspect of the
whole-school approach. Studies have shown that the presence of an administrator
around the school, especially if that principal/vice principal engages students
beyond an academic level, connects students more to school, increasing the
likelihood of students reporting bullying when it occurs (Espelage and Swearer
2010; Wilson 2004). In fact, in our US sample, students were asked about how
often they interacted with the principal and how often the principal greeted them
by name, both of which were associated with involvement in bullying as both
a victim and bully, leading to the conclusion that the only children who were
known to the principal were those who were often in trouble. Engaging students
in interactions on personal levels, not just academic or punitive, establishes a
caring and supportive environment that protects students from feeling isolated
from the school. Positive interactions with students, as well as staff, establish a
positive model for students to draw on for their peer relations (Craig et al. 2007).
If we institute programs to change student behavior, but do not alter the dynamics
between the other stakeholders, in particular when it comes to bullying, students
will learn little in their day-to-day interactions. They would be able to recite all
of the appropriate behaviors they are supposed to engage in when interacting with
others but behaviors among students would return to more aggressive forms. This
is because along with awareness and training, collective efficacy also needs to
be changed. Simply, educating all employees, from administrators to part-time
non-certified staff creates a consistent and supportive environment that influences
students, which is a necessary but not sufficient component of culture change.
88
Student Support
Historically, the response to addressing bullying has been to look at the bully and
the victim. Dont get us wrong. This is important to address, for bullying will
persist even in some of the best anti-bullying schools. Programs will always be
needed to support victims and change the behaviors of bullies (for a more detailed
discussion, see Chapter 8). All behaviors of students need to be addressed. More
importantly, programs that display to students what behaviors are positive and
what are unacceptable is important to not only address those directly involved
with bullying but the numerous bystanders involved.
Bystander education and support are important aspects of any program, as they
not only intervene during bullying episodes but also have a profound impact on the
culture of the school (see Chapter 7 for more discussion). Behavior management
programs inform students of what is acceptable and thus give a context for
responding to bullying. Educating students on the appropriateness of bullying to
enhance bystander response, which often entails reporting of bullying to adults,
necessitates an anonymous reporting procedure. Student involved programs,
such as SAFE Ambassadors also supports the idea of bystander response through
student groups.
What also needs to be addressed is the acceptance of diversity, which is
discussed in depth in Chapter 6, as a common reason for and perpetuation of
bullying, i.e. identifying a victim as socially different (Hamarus and Kaikkonen
2008; Thornberg 2011). Establishing programs that attempt to break down
differences between students, such as Mix It Up Day, highlights the acceptance of
diversity in a school.
The intention is to change the culture of the school by addressing all levels
and stakeholders so that each change, even when incremental offers support for
the other changes. The whole-school approach is about creating and supporting
a culture that does not promote bullying, lessening the likelihood of students
engaging in bullying behaviors, and building collective efficacy for bystander
action and non-acceptance of bullying behaviors that occur within the school.
Schools need to be central to addressing bullying because they are a key location
and they can have the biggest impact. However, it is also important to repeat that,
while school is the focal point of most anti-bullying efforts, schools are not the
only ones responsible for taking action. Culture change requires action at all levels
within the school and the systems around it.
Chapter 6

Social factors, while a general term, comprise a common focus of analysis within
bullying (and really, Sociology in general). Researchers look at what variables
contribute to or alter the experience of bullying to understand which groups may
be more susceptible to being involved in bullying. These factors can comprise a
number of possible identifiers, which, for this discussion, condense to principally
demographic variables (although, we do talk about disability, which is not always
constituted in demography). While this does not denote all possible social factors,
these are the most commonly utilized in research, and will aid in conveying a key
point concerning their use in research and in responding to bullying.
While important to understand the relationships between different social
identifiers and bullying, this perspective is limiting. First, it restricts the focus
to the demographic characteristics of the bullies and/or victims. Discussions of
social factors should engage all levels, not just the gender or race of the victim or
bully. Social factors of the school population, bystanders, staff and even parents
also influence the overall bullying experience. Veenstra et al. (2010) claimed that
in the relationship between gender and bullying, besides taking the gender of
the bully into account, we should also take the gender of the target and
the evaluator (480). Many previous analyses have engaged the relationship
between social factors and bullying as a static one. Our focus throughout this
chapter is that, while there exists a copious amount of literature that relates the
experiences of bullying to social factors, a static recognition of these factors does
not meaningfully contribute to a better understanding, much less intervention
and prevention efforts in schools. It is important to accurately portray intolerance
issues in general and emphasize that schools, as the primary institution in which
students interact, can challenge prejudice and discrimination. This awareness of
intolerance and prejudice, as well as any action to reduce them should be an aspect
of any anti-bullying program that is adopted at a school.
Past research findings on social factors are generally less useful in the
prevention of bullying at a school because social factors and their impact are
culturally determined. This means that the importance of each factor within
interactions is governed by the value placed upon the factor within a community
or larger culture. For example, Klein (2012) explained that with bullying there is a
prevailing patriarchal culture that highlights masculinity and masculine behaviors,
thus supporting aggressive, dominance-establishing conduct, commonly expressed
through bullying. This reflects a larger social context of violence predicated
by masculine dominance in societies and must be addressed. Sanday (1981)
evaluated 156 tribal societies in an attempt to challenge the perception that male
90
violence derives from simply being male. One key factor she identified that was
associated with higher incidents of rape was the focus on male dominance within
the culture. She drew similar conclusions in her discussion of school campuses
and fraternities, identifying that environments that express more egalitarian-based
interactions and perspectives are less likely to condone, much less experience rape
(Sanday 1996). Aggression then is something that does not exist within males but
rather is something that is learned as a reflection of key values of a culture.
Essentially, the patriarchal values of a culture are acted out through bullying,
producing and reproducing the social expectations of the male-dominated culture.
Gender matters in bullying because the culture in which the interaction occurs has
deemed masculinity to be germane to social interactions. Bullying may say less
about the aggressive tendencies of those involved than it does about the relations
of power that are dominant within society (Horton 2011: 269), which is similar
to findings expressed by Sanday (1981; 1996). In turn, using a social factor as a
reason to bully reproduces the social values of the community and culture at large.
The reproduction of values in the larger community is not the primary focus
of bullies. Despite the outcome, the intention of students is not to reproduce the
power structure of the society when they bully, but rather to establish their own
power using the cultural determinants to do so. This illustrates the dynamic nature
of the ecological perspective: cultural forces (i.e., the value placed on social
factors by a larger community) shape bullying, which in turn influences the nature
and frequency of bullying. Students then reproduce this cycle in their interactions
simultaneously achieving power in the school and reproducing the culture of
power, as well as bullying.
If, as we have articulated throughout this book, bullying is about establishing
power over others, then students will focus on those factors that help them achieve
this. It is not about the specific factors but rather which factors are best used to
distinguish a potential victim as different, and more important, socially (and often
physically) weaker (Thornberg 2011). As students have expressed, one reason for
bullying is said to be the perception of difference (Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008:
336). While it is important to view social factors as symbols of what is valued
(or not valued) in the larger culture and within a school, it is just as meaningful,
if not more relevant to recognize social factors as tools that give students access
to power.
To further elaborate, lets return to the example above about the patriarchal
system valuing aggression and bullying. Let us pretend that, in some miraculous
societal shift, patriarchy is no longer a factor in a culture. We can imagine the
potential changes that could occur throughout society, in particular, a decline in
the use of aggressive behaviors to dominate others as a way to express power.
This important change does little to address the cultural attitudes toward sexuality,
race, or disability that are also common in bullying. We understand that there
are some who would argue that if you address patriarchy, aggression against
anyone is largely addressed. But race and ethnicity scholars would certainly
question this absolutist position, as would advocates of children with disabilities.
91
The mistreatment of these students would likely persist because they are still being
defined as culturally different, and thus socially weaker. As Sanday (1981) noted,
masculine dominance and the importance of interpersonal violence were two
distinct factors that contributed to the level of rape in a society. Simply addressing
masculinity does not remove pursuit of power. While masculinity is certainly
intertwined with power and dominance, they are not synonymous.
What we are suggesting is that the analysis of social factors solely as causal
variables does not address the bullying culture as a whole. The discussion of social
factors should engage the societal expectations about each social factor and how
each contributes to a bullying event; furthermore, that all of the social expectations
and the importance of these factors are produced and reproduced through social
interactions in schools. More essential to our point is that social factors should be
understood, at least in part, as tools utilized by students to engage in bullying, not
the sole driving force that causes bullying.
Throughout this chapter, we discuss each of the major social factors (race,
gender, sexuality, class, disability) that have been found to contribute to bullying.
Within each discussion, we attempt to portray how it is not simply a discussion
of a static social factor but a cultural and social experience. An experience that
represents values within the culture, which are reproduced through interactions,
all contributing to the continuance of the culture of bullying. It is within the school
that such interactions perpetuate these same values, establishing the school, as
discussed in Chapter 5, as a primary institution through which bigotry can be
combated, not as a separate focus (or foci depending on the issues in a school) but
as a programmatic aspect of the Whole-School Approach.
Gender
Since we have been giving examples regarding gender as a social factor, lets start
with this concept. First, we do engage this topic in a broader fashion than many
of the other social factors discussed in this chapter. This does not denote that we
believe there to be a hierarchy of importance concerning social factors. Instead,
we are engaging gender in a comprehensive context to fully articulate our position
about social factors in general. The rest of the discussions will focus more on each
factor, relating each back to the primary points raised in this section.
Bullying research including gender consistently finds that males are more
likely than females to be bullies and victims (Coie and Dodge 1998; Espelage et
al. 2000; Veenstra et al. 2010). This is, in part, because we are more accustomed
to identifying males as bullies (Carrera et al. 2011). We see males as aggressors
in social interactions and females as victims (Migliaccio 2001). Girls, in contrast,
are more likely to engage in relational aggression, which is highlighted through
more passive aggressive forms of bullying, such as gossip and social exclusion
(Crick and Grotpeter 1995). Females often engage in less direct forms of bullying
92
behaviors because direct conflict is not behavior valued in females within the
larger culture (Simmons 2003).
While research into different forms of aggression has extended the conversation
beyond the normative attitude of males as aggressors in the society, the emphasis
tends to be on how womens experiences differ from males. To focus on how
boys bully differently in comparison to the bullying behaviors of girls is limiting
(Espelage et al. 2004). It can result in practitioners down playing girls forms of
bullying since they are less directly disruptive and evident (Keddie 2009). In fact,
female bullies are often labeled as Queen Bees or more recently, Mean Girls
(Wiseman 2009), which the terms may be euphemisms for bully, the unwillingness
to label girls as bullies likely resides in the belief that females are not aggressive
(Simmons 2003). This belief can limit teacher awareness of bullying, as female
bullies are often identified by teachers as being good students who are popular
(Keddie 2009). Such perceptions curb boys from responding to bullying by girls
because of the limited perspective about female bullies (Brinson 2005). This can
contribute to female bullies being more popular than male bullies (Thunfors and
Cornell 2008).
Furthermore, focusing on the different forms of male and female aggression
represents a form of gender blindness in research that limits our understanding of
bullying (Gruber and Fineran 2008), which results in labeling of certain behaviors
as male or female bullying that may not always be accurate. For example, in a
study of 2,086 5th10th grade students in Germany, researchers found that
boys were more likely to engage in all forms of bullying, including relational
aggression (Scheithauer et al. 2006). Gendering bullying also ignores that girls
can be physically aggressive (Dukes et al. 2010), or that boys can be bullied by
girls (Klein 2012). For example, through retroactive interviews of adults, Brinson
(2005) found that girls engage in bullying of boys including physical bullying,
often as physically nasty as any male, sometimes even more so (170).
Focus on distinct gender categorization especially does not fit for cyber
bullying as the findings are inconsistent. Some research shows that males are more
likely to be cyber bullies (Li 2006), while others show that females are more likely
(Willard 2007). In a study of 276 Turkish 10th12th grade students, it was found
that boys consistently displayed higher levels of cyber-victimization and bullying,
except when it came to bully-victims (Erdur-Baker 2010). Still, others have found
no difference concerning cyber bullying (Smith et al. 2008; Ybarra and Mitchell
2004). This disparity in findings could be due to the freshness of this topic of
study. It could also be indicative of the fact that behavioral norms online are not
clearly defined for either gender, or more likely that the representation of gender
through online interactions is complicated, differing according to cultural context.
This is not to contend that there have been found no gender differences
identified in research on cyber bullying. For example, dissimilar usage (ErdurBaker 2010) is, in part, because girls are not allowed as much freedom outside of
the house compared to boys, so they rely more on the internet for communication
(Joiner et al. 2012). Boys, in contrast, are expected to engage in both risky and
93
aggressive behaviors offline as an expression of masculinity (Kimmel 1996),

which can translate into similar online behaviors (Underwood and Rosen 2011).
What we are arguing is that the relationship between experiences of bullying and
gender is not a simple static explanation, but is contextual. Without recognizing
the social expectations that influence gender, we end up relying on generalized
assumptions about gender that lead us to assume deceptive distinctions between
men and women. These presumptions fail to allow us to fully understand the
relationship between gender and bullying.
Deceptive Distinctions
Deceptive distinctions are socially determined variables that contribute to
perceptions that males and females are different, or even naturally dissimilar
(Epstein 1988). Deceptive distinctions are so closely associated with gender,
the impact they have is hidden, leaving many to assume any changes are due to
gender (Migliaccio 2008: 16). For bullying, this means we assume males are the
aggressors and females are the victims, limiting our perception of males as victims
and females as bullies. It means we are not fully aware of or recognize when a
student engages in behaviors that are associated with the other gender, i.e. boys as
relational aggressors and females as physically aggressive.
Issues pertaining to deceptive distinctions extend beyond labels applied to
students. We, as a society, assume that the experiences in bullying are directly
a result of being a girl or a boy. This assumption ignores the requirements and
expectations placed on girls and boys that create differential experiences, such as
with internet usage. In another example, it has been claimed that girls are more
likely to be bullied in suburban areas than in urban areas. This is not because
girls are statistically more aggressive or meaner in suburban schools. In fact,
the higher levels of aggression in urban communities (Bradshaw et al. 2010)
would lead us to the opposite conclusion. Instead, it is largely because girls are
less likely to be street users than boys (Percy-Smith and Matthews 2001: 58),
meaning they are less likely to be out in the urban community, or really allowed
out into the neighborhood. This reduces the likelihood of negative interactions
outside of the home, including being targeted for bullying. As discussed above,
this social limitation for girls may contribute to females relying on the internet
for social interaction, which increases the likelihood of engaging in bullying
behaviors online. For girls in urban areas (lower income) because internet use is
class specific, they are less likely to interact online, thus reducing the likelihood
of being bullied online.
Doing Gender
We are not discounting gender as a factor. Instead what we are contending is
that gender is relevant because of socially established rules and expectations that
are associated with gender. We know gender matters, but not as a static concept.
94
Gender is a fluid idea that alters interactions and relationships because it is a

social construction more than a biological category. Using a social constructionist
standpoint, gender is a process through which people perform behaviors within
interactions. It is what West and Zimmerman (1986) have labeled as doing
gender, which represents gender as an active process that is interpreted by others.
This is not to assume that we all actively choose behaviors to represent our gender,
but rather that we have learned what behaviors are acceptable for the gender that
others perceive us to be (sex category, as expressed by West and Zimmerman),
and often, we see ourselves as being (i.e. gender identity). We then perform those
behaviors in social interactions so we are socially accepted.
Most often these behaviors are unconsciously performed in interactions as we
see them as part of who we are (or really who we present to others). When our
behaviors do not meet the standards of expectations within a culture (Connell
1987), other students engage in gender policing in an effort to educate and
inform us of the correct behaviors that should be performed (Carrera et al. 2011;
Klein 2012). Bullying in relation to gender relates to masculine or feminine
performances, and the gender policing that occurs in response to the behaviors.
It is not, however, so much about enticing students to perform correct behaviors
(although that most certainly is a lesson that can be gleaned from gender bullying)
but rather to identify that a students behaviors deviated from the norm. For boys,
it is often associated with being effeminate or physically weaker, neither of which
are representative of the dominant standard, or hegemonic masculinity (Connell
1987). For example, it has been found that close relationships with parents are
more common among male victims than female (Nickerson et al. 2010), likely
because strong relationships with parents depict a boy as needy, and thus weaker,
which is not considered masculine.
Other times the gender bullying is a result of performing behaviors that
are very closely aligned to the dominant standard. This occurs most often
among females, which challenges the performance, and ultimately the status of
another female student. For example, for females much of their status resides in
attractiveness and connection to boys. Duncan and Owens (2011) found in a study
of 1416-year-old girls in England, the focus was intently on accessing boys
attention, relying heavily on attractiveness. This means, as discussed in the chapter
on groups (Chapter 7), if another girl was deemed to be more, or at least a similar
attractiveness level, bullying was more likely to occur (Simmons 2003). This is
because one females feminine performance of attractiveness was perceived as
challenging the performance of another, potentially causing the other to lose status
and thus resources (boys) in the school. The intention then is to lower the status
of the recently recognized attractive female. This is why gossip-based bullying
among girls often focuses on altering perceptions about a girls performances of
femininity, such as calling them sluts (too sexual), lesbian (deviant) or being male
(too masculine).
Gender bullying not only is a result of performances but also has an impact
on gendered performances. In Kleins (2012) comprehensive analysis of school
95
shootings and their relation to bullying, consistent victimization of students was

linked to less masculine behaviors. The response by the boys who were bullied was
to engage in socially defined masculine behaviors deemed to be more masculine,
i.e. shoot their bullies (and others who they deemed had harmed them). Actions
to address victimization through correct gendered responses can occur even when
gender was not the defining characteristic for the victimization. In a two-year study
of 172 3rd5th grade students in the United States, Lee and Troop-Gordon (2011)
found that victimization of students affected gendered behaviors of students. For
boys, mistreatment through multiple forms of bullying (verbal, physical, general)
resulted in greater adherence to gendered norms within the school, even though
it was apparent that the victims had not been ridiculed for engaging in abnormal
gendered behaviors.
In contrast to Kleins (2012) findings, however, Lee and Troop-Gordon found
no increase in masculine behaviors but instead an avoidance of feminine behaviors
by victims. Either way, a response by the students was to correct social standing
through gendered behaviors, which emphasizes the value placed on gender in the
culture. Likely the different responses in the two studies could be because the
students who were bullied as a result of inappropriate gendered behaviors (Klein
2012) were trying to directly address the victimization by performing what they
deemed to be the more appropriate behaviors (acting more masculine). For those
students who were not being bullied through gender (Lee and Troop-Gordon
2011), they were attempting to correct behaviors that might further marginalize
them, i.e. inappropriate gendered behaviors.
What is compelling about the Lee and Troop-Gordon (2011) study is that boys
who were socially excluded engaged in more behaviors more commonly defined
as feminine. This seems counter to the previous point about affecting gendered
performances, but it emphasizes the importance of gendered behaviors in defining
social dynamics. In this context, these boys had been socially marginalized, limiting
their access to the larger culture and resources, which could potentially have an
impact on their identity. Instead of trying to perform more hegemonic masculine
behaviors, i.e. fighting, an altercation they would likely lose, further denying them
access to the dominant social community, these boys engaged the marginalized
identity. This was likely done in an attempt to counteract the negative impact of
the social exclusion. Simply, they rejected the dominant culture instead of having
it reject them. This is not to claim that rejecting the dominant standard of gendered
behaviors is helpful in protecting these students from any harm, but rather that
this response of rejection is an attempt by these boys to control the outcome with
the limited resources they have. Rather than have their bullies define them, they
are accepting a marginalized identity as who they are as people by outwardly
performing behaviors that further ostracize them, i.e. performing more feminine
behaviors. Even if one believes that these children were acting out behaviors based
on who they felt themselves to be, their increased engagement in the effeminate
behavior after being bullied highlights that the reaction is related to the bullying.
And potentially what could be occurring is that these marginalized students are
96
accepting their centralized identity of being different, which they had previously
kept hidden to avoid marginalization.
Regardless of whether the males are pursuing or rejecting societal norms,
men are more likely to externalize their reactions to victimization (Crick et al.
2002), even to the point of retaliation (Klein 2012). For example, it was found
in a study in the United States that boys raised in families with severe violence
are more likely to use both overt and relational aggression, meaning they act out
their experiences upon others. In contrast, females tend to internalize experiences
(Olafsen and Viemer 2000). In the same study about how violent families affect
experiences of bullying, it was found that girls were likely to suffer from direct
forms of bullying (Knous-Westfall et al. 2012), meaning that girls tend not to act
out the violence on others, but instead passively experience violent acts when
they occur.
This does not mean girls do not react as a result of aggression. In a study in
Germany, it was found that while boys may be more likely to experience relational
aggression, girls were more negatively affected by relational aggression, leading
them to be more likely carry weapons (Scheithauer et al. 2006). This does not
mean their intent is to use the weapons, as females who are victimized often
struggle to confront aggressive behaviors of any form because overt responses
are not appropriate feminine behaviors (Underwood 2004). The weapons then are
a defensive response, to be used if attacked (and likely only to thwart continued
bullying). In fact, many female victims blame themselves for bullying because
they have been taught that the success of their relationships is their responsibility
(Garey 1995; James et al. 2011), so when violence is occurring within relationships,
regardless of the form of abuse, women often feel at fault (Migliaccio 2002).
Furthermore, women are more likely to withdraw from interactions when they
are bullied, and to an even greater degree when they are socially excluded, as
opposed to overtly responding to them as males do (Klein 2012; Lee and TroopGordon 2011).
Inter-group Expectations
While differences in experiences of victims are related to social performances, the
acceptance of the actions is determined by the witnesses of the bullying events. The
perception of what is occurring is important since the perspective of the bystander
is largely what determines the gendered dynamics of bullying within interactions.
Inter-group social expectations and the existence of bullying behaviors negatively
determine the likelihood of intervention for boys (Espelage et al. 2012). Similar
findings have been found for girls as they were significantly affected by group
norms in terms of responses and behaviors concerning bullying (Salmivalli and
Voeten 2004). In the study by Salmivalli and Voeten (2004) of 1,220 elementary
school students in Finland, it was found that girls are much more influenced in
bullying situations by the social and group context, meaning if the group was less
accepting then the girls were less likely to engage in the behaviors. This social
97
response is not without warrant, as it has been found that when girls bully boys
they are more likely to be rejected by their peers, regardless of the gender of the
bystanders (Veenstra et al. 2010).
Gender relations are also impacted by the gendered dynamic throughout
a school. When social networks throughout a school include a high number of
cross-gender friendships, there is less likely to be bullying (Faris and Felmlee
2011). In a survey study of 3722 9th11th grade students in the Southern United
States, Faris and Felmlee (2011) also found that having a greater number of crossgender ties reduces the engagement of bullying. Still, in the same study, for those
who have a high number of cross-gender ties and have higher status, but attend
schools with lower levels of cross-gender friendships, these individuals tend to be
more likely to engage in aggression toward both genders, making it likely related
to romantic interests and dating, further emphasizing the need to consider the
gendered context, and not just the gender of those involved.
Because girls are heavily influenced by peer dynamics and relationships, it has
been discerned that positive, quality friendships served as a more important buffer
against bullying for female students than for male students (Schmidt and Bagwell
2007). This is a result of boys being expected to be self-reliant (Harris 1995),
while girls are expected to rely on others (Hunter and Boyle 2004). The impact of
friendships, however, is also influenced by the type of bullying that is occurring.
This is why in the same study the characteristic of closeness of the friendships
influenced the relationship between bullying and depression (Schmidt and
Bagwell 2007). Simply, the type of bullying had an impact upon the importance
of friendship quality. For out-group bullying, friendship acted as a buffer, limiting
the impact, while when in-group (relational aggression) bullying occurred, the
intimacy in the friendship heightened the impact on the student.
As we have emphasized throughout this section, it is not simply the gender of
the person that determines the outcome of bullying, but the expectations of the
bystanders, the performances of the victims and bullies, and the social background
of all students involved that influences the gendered dynamics of bullying, which in
turn affects students gendered behaviors. It is all encapsulated within the context
of the interaction and the pursuit of power, largely influenced by the expectation
of difference and/or dominance. Schools, then, as a primary institution in which
such dominance expressions are enacted have an opportunity to educate others on
the acceptance of difference and the importance of challenging inequality. This is
not limited to gender, as any educational program focused on raising awareness
of prejudicial attitudes about any social group can be delivered though a school.
Simply, as identified in Chapter 5, schools are primary mechanisms for challenging
the larger culture among students.
98
Data Box 6.1Interaction of gender and school relationships

In our USA sample an interaction between gender and school factors and relationships
was found, such that different school and relationship factors were significantly related
to frequency of bullying for girls and for boys.
Table 6.1Interaction by gender and school relationships

Item correlated with amount bullied in past three months
Number of good friends at my school.
Number of groups/teams/clubs I belong to
Number of brothers and sisters at my school.
How often my parents volunteer at the school.
I have a good relationship with my teacher.
My relationship with my teacher is full of conflict
I feel my teacher cares about me
Boys
.11*
.02
.07
.01
.13**
.02
.14**
Girls
.11*
.07
.14**
.06
.07
.09
.12*
*p<.05, **p<.01
Overall, the findings above speak to the importance of social support from people
within the school environment like teachers and friends. Social supports not only
offer protective measures but, in particular with the teachers, connect students more
explicitly to the school.
For gender differences, males who were bullied more were likely to have fewer
friends and poorer relationships with their teachers. This highlights the importance of
male connectivity even more so than girls, largely because the educational institution
has in the contemporary era been presented as less conducive to masculinity (for a
brief discussion of this, see Migliaccio 2008). Connection to teachers will limit the
isolation and ultimately the absenteeism of victims.
For girls who were bullied more a primary factor for them related to having siblings
at the school. Siblings offer a greater level of protection, but not as much for boys. This
may be largely because it is acceptable for girls to be protected, while it is expected
that boys need to confront their own aggressors, and not rely on others (Kimmel 1996).
What this data also conveys is that while gender issues exist, the actual impact
is minor. Focusing on the gender differences fails to articulate the key finding: social
supports reduce bullying.
Kimmel, Michael. 1996. Manhood in America. New York: The Free Press.
Migliaccio, Todd. 2008. Addressing deceptive distinctions: A comparison of the
occupational requirements of military personnel and elementary school teachers.
Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 36:1526.
99
Sexuality
Sexuality as a focus of bullying persists largely because many societies condone
the marginalization of the LGBTQ community through denial of equal rights
protection under the law. This is largely a result of societal values that denigrate
LGBTQ members and their community. As discussed in Chapter 4, homophobic
values of a surrounding environment increase the likelihood of bullying LGBTQ
students in a school. Such values in a larger culture impact the existence, or lack
thereof, of legal protections for LGBTQ members. While harassment of members of
the LGBTQ community can be governed using existing laws, such as in the United
States and the violation of Title IX (Anderson 2014), explicit laws that focus on
the protection of these groups challenge the cultural acceptance that depicts them
as deviant. For example, many countries in Africa have expressed homophobic
sentiments, which are related to legal rights denials to LGBTQ individuals (Biruk
2014), all of which contributes to the violence against these groups. Similarly,
Russia has outlawed homosexuality on the basis of morality (Naryshkin 2013),
which has been presented as a limitation to progress (Rahman 2014). Even in
South Africa, a country that has been legally progressive for LGBTQ rights, it has
been found that homophobic discrimination derives from the cultural attitudes that
homosexuality was UnAfrican (Reygan and Lynette 2014).
In contrast, in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation was
not allowed as a means for discrimination, resulting in members of the LGBTQ
community being identified as a protected group (Anderson 2014). Even with
laws supporting LGBTQ rights, violence and discrimination can persist because
the larger cultural influences that focus on the normalization of heterosexuality
take longer to change, limiting the impact that legal rights can have on the social
acceptance of the LGBTQ community (Bhana 2014). Still, Anderson (2014)
concluded in his analysis of schools in Canada, the United States and Great Britain
that laws in support of LGBTQ students can be used to challenge homophobic
policies and practices, allowing for the development of safe environments
including GSA clubs. He also found that the more focused and explicit the law
and/or policy is on protecting LGBTQ individuals, the more effective it is, in
particular in schools. Furthermore, clearer school policies help LGBTQ students
to feel safer (Hunt and Jensen 2007). Simply, schools offer an opportunity to not
only educate students but challenge cultural norms that promote discrimination, in
this context, of LGBTQ students.
As noted, the acceptance of discrimination and prejudice in the general society,
whether legal or cultural, usually persists in schools. As Connolly (2012) noted,
the development of anti-bullying laws throughout the United States, which were
largely spurred by incidences of homophobic harassment, did not extend these
laws to protect LGBTQ youth. The individuals whose experiences were used to
create the legislation were not protected under the subsequent laws. The absence
of legal protection has further contributed to the existence of homophobic bullying
throughout schools. In a nationwide survey of students in the United States, it
100
was identified that a majority of students hear homophobic slurs regularly,

with 44% identifying that they heard them often from a majority of their peers
(Kosciw and Diaz 2005). In a more recent study, it was noted that almost 82%
of LGBTQ students experienced verbal harassment while attending school, 38%
were physically harassed, and over 18% had been physically assaulted (Kosciw
et al. 2011).
Some, however, argue that verbal statements against the homosexual lifestyle
are a religious liberty because that persons faith identifies homosexuality as a sin.
What has been identified as homophobic slurs are presented as being protected
because of freedom of speech (Finnis 2011). What this fails to articulate is that
negative comments against specific individuals, or what we characterize as hatespeech because of the focus on denigrating a specific group of people is not
proportionate to the rights of perceiving these individuals as living an immoral
lifestyle (Bailey 2014). As expressed by the UK Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations 2007, the rights of members of the LGBTQ to avoid being
discriminated against took precedent over religious belief or faith that perceived
these groups as immoral (Gibson 2013).The right for someone to believe that the
LGBTQ lifestyle is immoral is not limited but rather the speech that expresses
this perspective is because it discriminates against LGBTQ and in the context of
school can disrupt their learning environment (Anderson 2014). Furthermore, such
comments promote a negative school culture, which perpetuates aggression toward
LGBTQ individuals. In effect, a religious liberty argument validates bullying
behavior against LGBTQ students, making the argument a disproportionate one.
By establishing policies in schools that disallow the use of hate-speech promotes
a supportive environment for LGBTQ students.
It is not just that denigrating comments are so common but that the bullying
that is often the intention of the labels has a profound impact. In an analysis of
2,095 urban Japanese youth, it was concluded that the two most prevalent cofactors for an increase in suicide attempts by boys were being homosexual and
being bullied (Hidaka et al. 2008). Similarly, in a retrospective study in Austria
of 468 gay and bisexual adults, it was found that 18% of them attempted suicide
as a student, half of whom identified that bullying because of their sexuality (or
perceived sexuality) resulted in the attempted suicide (Ploderl et al. 2010).
The negative stigmatization and impact on students dramatically increases as
the acceptance level of homosexuality declines. In a study of teachers perceptions
and attitudes about intervention for homophobic bullying in Greece, which
the researchers identified as an area less supportive of LGBTQ issues, it was
recognized that students are often ridiculed for gender non-conforming behavior,
with teachers rarely intervening. When teachers do address an issue it is because
of a heightened level of danger, and still then, the response is often in a discrete
manner (Gerouki 2010). Even in a country that has defined itself as accepting of
LGBTQ youth, such as Norway, students continue to struggle with full acceptance
in the community, to the point that consideration of suicide is viable if one is gay
(Rthing and Svendsen 2010).
101
While suicidal ideation is an extreme consequence of being bullied, it is

not the only negative outcome. LGBTQ bullied students suffer from isolation,
which increases the likelihood of depression and suicide (Espelage et al. 2008;
Hershberger and DAugelli 1995). Students who experience homophobic bullying
are also more likely to report feeling unsafe at school, which can relate to frequent
absences and lowered grades (Rivers 2000; Russell et al. 2001), higher rates of
alcohol and drug use (Birkett et al. 2009), as well as being more likely to contract
sexually transmitted diseases (Russell et al. 2011). What is even more intriguing
is that students who identify as heterosexual but who suffer from homophobic
victimization are at even greater risk of the negative repercussions identified
above (Poteat et al. 2011).
Considering the social performance argument discussed in the section on
gender, homophobic bullying is often about the perceived sexuality of the
individual, and not an actual Queer identity. This is largely determined by the
behaviors of the victim who are deemed different from the dominant standard
of masculinity or femininity in the culture (Klein 2012). In a 2001 study, it was
found that about 75% of students who were harassed through homophobic slurs
self-identified as straight (Human Rights Watch 2001). This is consistent with a
previous report that concluded for every LGBTQ student who is harassed, four
students who are heterosexual are harassed because their conduct did not meet
expectations of gendered behaviors (Reese 1997).
To counteract the harassment of students, school response is an important
component of decreasing homophobic bullying for all students. In a survey of
7,376 7th and 8th grade students from the United States, Birkett et al. (2009)
concluded that schools that show positive school climate, and in particular, negative
attitudes toward homophobic comments, LGBTQ students expressed similar
levels of safety and positive attitudes about school as heterosexual students. While
supportive schools and teachers exist, it is common to have teachers who display
less support of LGBTQ students. This behavior limits the impact any other teacher
can have on changing the culture of a school. In a nationwide survey of students in
the United States, it was highlighted that 19% of students shared that homophobic
slurs came from staff and teachers (Kosciw and Diaz 2005). Furthermore, many
teachers have been identified as being unwilling to intervene when homophobic
bullying occurs (Lipkin 2002; Ploderl et al. 2010), especially when it is directed
explicitly at LGBTQ youth (Conoley 2008). Overall, in schools that were identified
as being less accepting, questioning students suffered the most, expressing lower
connectivity to the school (Birkett et al. 2009), emphasizing the importance of
school response in challenging intolerance.
When schools do not respond, social networks and groups established in support
of queer students attempt to offset the persistence of limited laws and policies, as
well as teachers who fail to protect LGBTQ youth. These groups offer a supportive
network that either reduces the likelihood of bullying occurring, or at least lessens
the impact bullying has on victims. In fact, bystander intervention is even greater
when supported by groups (Wernick et al. 2013). Such groups, however, while
102
growing, do not exist everywhere. At present time, about 53% of high schools in
California have a club that is affiliated with the LGBTQ community. This, however,
is a state that is excelling in support of LGBTQ students. Beyond California, only
37 states have at least one recognized school sanctioned gay-straight alliance club
in at least one of their high schools (GSA 2009). Outside of the United States,
such programs are not as extensive, being officially identified in only five other
countries (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Netherlands). Still,
many of these countries (and others) have independent groups that exist outside
of schools that support the LGBTQ community, including students. For example,
there is the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans &
Intersex Association that includes 45 of the 49 European countries (Europe 2010).
Having groups who support LGBTQ students increases the likelihood of
a student being out at some level, as it is a community that offers a safe place
to which a student can connect positively and be accepted (Herdt 1997). In an
attempt to create such safety zones, GLSEN (2013a) offers all schools Safe Place
Kits, so they can establish locations on their campus that LGBTQ students can
feel safe, especially as they become more comfortable with their identities. In fact,
to change the culture on school campuses surrounding the LGBTQ community,
GLSEN (2013b) has established a number of supportive programs. Some programs
are aimed at educating about bullying, some helping victims and others intended
for teachers. All of these programs work to change the negative value placed on
the Queer community, allowing students who are questioning to more openly
attend to their identity, and if desired, come out. Being out decreases the impact
homophobic harassment has on a student (Kosciw et al. 2011) as it links students
to a supportive network or group (if one is available). In contrast, questioning
youth, who are less likely to affiliate with LGBTQ groups are more likely to suffer
when bullied (Espelage et al. 2008). This includes, as identified above, suffering
at higher rates for the negative impact of bullying, including depression, suicidal
ideation and drug and alcohol abuse (Birkett et al. 2009; Hershberger et al. 1997;
Russell et al. 2011).
Ultimately, the experience of homophobic bullying affects more than just
LGBTQ students. In order to reduce the bullying, a comprehensive, social response
should occur. But the important dynamic to be considered is that bullying students
as a result of sexuality is related to perceived difference within the community.
As identified above, heterosexual and questioning students suffer the most from
homophobic bullying, so supportive programs and/or groups for LGBTQ students
will not likely aid them because these are the students least likely to identify or
affiliate with the Queer community and/or groups. Focused intervention alone will
likely not have the effect desired, necessitating a larger response for the acceptance
of diversity in all its forms. This does not mean programs that address homophobia
are not important or impactful. Addressing these issues may deal with the issues
related to LGBTQ students, but this effort should be tied to a large social response
within a school to change the culture for everyone; without that, bullying persists,
in particular for students who are perceived to be part of a group but who are not.
103
Race
Race as a social factor has a consistent influence on social interactions, being used
as a common determinant of how to engage with a person (or judge them). As a
topic of analysis in bullying, this factor is complicated, leading to several engaging
debates, but no clear answers. A key deliberation concerns the relationship between
racism and bullying, with some arguing that racism is a form of bullying (Tattum
and Lane 1989). Those subscribing to this position believe in the inclusion of all
race-based attacks as a persistent form of bullying. Researchers who emphasize
this position posit that racist bullying has a greater negative impact on a school
than more individual-forms of bullying (i.e. physical attractiveness). They believe
that racist bullying damages both the individual and the racial group with which
the individual is affiliated (Keise 1992), i.e. a double-harm (OBrien 2007). In
contrast, the position that racist bullying has a far-reaching impact beyond the
school culture has been utilized by those who claim that the extreme nature of
racial aggression (which can be associated with hate crimes) is construed as more
than bullying. People in support of this position argue that racism is more serious
than bullying (Siann et al. 1994) and should not be subsumed under it.
While we accept that there exists a persistent overlap between racial affiliation
and bullying, we believe there is a distinct, albeit ideological difference between
the two. There are instances of racism that are not bullying but rather could
be classified more under the auspices of discriminatory race relations (or hate
crimes), just as many bullying behaviors are not based in the perpetuation of racist
attitudes, even when race is being used. Much of it comes down to the intention
of the aggressor. If the bully chooses the victim because she or he sees the student
as vulnerable based on the students race, and thus, are using race as a means to
dominate and marginalize, then it is more closely akin to bullying. This does not
mean the perception of the students race is not based in racist ideology, as such
acts derive from socially determined attitudes toward different groups (Englander
2007), but rather to note that the intention of the bully is to display power within
the school and that race is the means to achieve it (Horton 2011). In contrast,
focusing on the race because a student wants to express his or her race as more
dominant is more closely affiliated with race-based hate crimes, meaning, if a
student harasses another student because he or she believes her or his race to be
inferior, this may be regardless of whether the student sees the target as weaker in
the larger context. Finally, the aggressor is attempting to advocate for a hierarchy
of race relations but not solely as a means to achieve power throughout the school.
To further this explanation, we note that it is not just about the intention of
the bully in their actions toward the victim but also the intention of the bully in
reference to bystanders. While both hate crimes and bullying are social experiences
(Englander 2007), the social intention differs. If the bully wants to spin this act
into power throughout the school, often regardless of race, it is more related to
bullying. If they are focused on the dominance over the individuals affiliated with
this (and potentially other) racial or ethnic group, it seems more related to racism.
104
Still, this distinction is an ideological spin, and while important to understand,

is difficult to define and even more complex to measure. Even more important, the
outcome is often similar for the student experiencing the harassment, regardless of
whether it is bullying or racism. Furthermore, the stereotypes and attitudes of both
largely derive from the societal values and expectations (Horton 2011). Studies
in the United Kingdom (Gillborn 1993), Canada (Zeigler and Rosenstein-Manner
1991), and the Netherlands have concluded that racial bullying is more a reflection
of racial attitudes in the larger society (Verkuyten and Thijs 2002). Ultimately, we
present that the two are related but that forms of racial aggression exist outside
the purview of bullying. Regardless, the intervention and prevention for both
would be heavily influenced by the acceptance of diversity throughout a school
(Englander 2007), highlighting the impact schools can have on racial prejudice.
Ethnic/Racial Groups
Considering that race-based bullying is determined by societal values, this has
a distinct impact on the specific groups who are bullied, or really the analysis of
the specificity of race as a variable. Ultimately, researchers persist in trying to
understand the causes of bullying or victimization, in order to determine whether
specific racial groups are more likely to be bullied or victimized than others. The
problem is that it is not a question of explicit variables, as social factors do not
exist in a vacuum. When studies have compared the experiences of different groups
there have been noted differences. Two different studies concluded that Latinos
were less likely to be involved with bullying in comparison to African Americans
(Peskin et al. 2006), and Whites (Hanish and Guerra 2000), while other studies
have concluded that African American students are less likely to be bullied than
White or Latino students (Spriggs et al. 2007; Storch et al. 2003). Another study
concluded the most common group that is bullied are Native Americans (Carlyle
and Steinman 2007). Beyond victimization, research has identified that African
Americans are no more likely to be bullies than any other racial group (Goldweber
et al. 2013), while a different research project concluded that Blacks are the most
likely group to bully (Lovegrove et al. 2012). This disparity may not be related
to actual behavior but perceptions of Blacks as more aggressive (Bradshaw et al.
2010), relating it more to social dynamics and stereotypes than actual behaviors.
In contrast to the findings above, other researchers have claimed that race is not
a factor, concluding that race as a factor in victimization appears to be no different
from general findings (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010; Mouttapa et al. 2004), i.e. that the
likelihood of victimization of a student is not changed by the students race. In a
study of 1,139 secondary students from London and Glasgow, Siann et al. (1994)
found no significant relationship between ethnic background and experiences with
bullying. In fact, Peskin et al. (2006) found that gender plays a much greater role
in bullying than race.
Such direct and elementary conclusions of one group being more or less likely
to suffer from victimization (or be bullies) do not inform the comprehensive social
105
Data Box 6.2Difficulty of studying race/ethnicity

The difficulty of conducting analyses of race/ethnicity as a factor in bullying is only
further limited with the increase of individuals, including students identifying as multiracial. For example, in our study in the United States of 1675 students, we allowed
students to identify all ethnic/racial groups that are applicable. The results from the
1004 who responded yielded the following identities:
Table 6.2
List of racial/ethnic student identities
Caucasian
African American
Hispanic
Asian
Filipino
Middle Eastern
Pakistani
Hmong
Native American
Indian
Russian
CaucasianHispanic
CaucasianAfrican American
CaucasianAsian
HispanicAfrican American
HispanicAsian
HispanicNative American
HispanicCaucasianNative American
Hispanic-Caucasian-Filipino
African American-Caucasian-Middle Eastern
Caucasian-Russian-Middle Eastern
Mixed
With such diversity, it becomes difficult to ascertain a large enough sample size to
compare groups. Even if researchers focus on perceived race/ethnicity, it is a subjective
determination and does not fully clarify the students actual experiences.
Focusing on societal determinations of racial groups and identifiability, meaning
if we collapse groups, using a societal ranking of perceived most identifiable to
less physically identifiable, we can determine a list. For example, we identified the
following groups: Hispanic (n = 514), Caucasian (n = 158), African American (n =
162), Asian (n = 76) and Mixed (n = 91), a number of students skipped this item. Using
an ANOVA to compare these groups on bullying found no significant differences,
F(4,1001) = 1.44, n.s.
This is likely because relying on such a structured approach does not convey the
cultural experience of the students in relation to bullying (and really their lives in
general). In fact 10% of the sample identified themselves as mixed and an additional
13% identified with three ethnicities.
Focusing on majority vs minority, the relationship with bullying is significant,
which for this community, Hispanic was the majority group. This sample showed that
non-Hispanic students (M = .85, SD = 1.26) reported slightly higher victimization
by bullies than Hispanic students (M =.78, SD =1.18), but these means were not
significantly different t(925)=.872, n.s. However, victims of bullying who were nonHispanic (M = 1.05, SD = 1.23) reported significantly more harassment and name
calling related to race/ethnicity than Hispanic students (M = .79, SD = 1.06), t(409)
= 2.52, p = .01, d = .23. This is consistent with prior research that has shown that the
minority group in any school will report more bullying (Graham and Juvonen 2002).
106
While highlighting the importance of group size, and not race or ethnicity
specifically, it conveys little else about our understanding of race/ethnicity in relation
to bullying. Essentially, it is becoming ever more difficult to ascertain relationship
between race/ethnicity and bullying in a school.
Graham, Sandra and Jaana Juvonen. 2002. Ethnicity, Peer Harassment, and Adjustment
in Middle School: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Early Adolescence 22:173.
and cultural dynamics that influence the bullying experience, especially as it

relates to race. In a study of 6,750 students in the United States, Koo et al. (2012)
found that Asian Americans were the least likely to be bullied, which goes against
previous findings that Asians were at higher risk for bullying in the United States
(Mouttapa et al. 2004; Qin et al. 2008). What was found by Koo, et al. is that Asian
American immigrants were more likely to be victimized, as they are often isolated
within the school. This means that a subset of the larger ethnic group suffered, but
taken as a whole the group did not suffer. Furthermore, Asian American immigrants
are the least likely group to be bullies, and not solely because they suffer at higher
rates of victimization, but in part, because of the cultural demand for being lawabiding (Choi and Lahey 2006). Overall, there is no definitive finding that can be
identified about race/ethnicity as causal variables, but rather it is more about how
these factors interact with other social and cultural variables.
To better understand the relationship between race and bullying, we believe
that we need to focus on the social dynamics surrounding the pursuit of power
that occurs through interactions. Considering that bullying is about power and the
display of dominance over an individual, any potential power differences need to
be socially relevant. In reference to race and ethnicity, power displays are most
effective when they relate to social values and perspectives about race relations
and racial groups that reside in a community and persist throughout a school.
Schools should address the specific racial divides that exist within the community,
while not ignoring the overall emphasis on acceptance of all students.
In a study of attitudes about bullying of British students, ages 1116, half from
low income schools and half from high income schools, it was found that students
attitudes about the impact of racial bullying was dependent upon the groups.
Students from lower class schools more often recognized the negative impact of
racial bullying on students, while also recognizing potential protective factors of
social support, i.e. family (OBrien 2007). In contrast, students from higher class
schools focused on the immateriality of stereotypes, claiming racial blindness.
Simply, attitudes toward bullying are largely influenced by social location of a
school or social group. In fact, the impact of race on social experiences in general
is often conflated with social location (LaVeist et al. 2011). Goldweber et al.
(2013) concluded that urban environments influenced perceptions about reasons
for bullying, including race-based bullying.
107
This is not to argue that race is not a factor in bullying, or that racial disruption
does not occur on school campuses. Nor are we trying to claim that racial strife
is simply a decision. In fact, we know that racial discord persists throughout
schools, but this is influenced by the culture of the school, along with the value
placed upon race and racial dominance in the surrounding community (Horton
2011; OBrien 2007). In fact, it has been found that minority students who are also
identified as victims by white peers are more likely to reflect on their harassment
as being racial in nature (Seaton et al. 2013). Still, often what determines whether
individuals from a racial group are bullied is the size and make-up of each ethnic
or racial group within a school (Goldweber et al. 2013). Graham and Juvonen
(2002) argued that it is the ethnic composition of the school and whether the
victim belongs to the majority or minority group, rather than individual ethnicity
that relates to victimization. This is only compounded by the fact that bystander
attitudes toward bullying are influenced by the size of the support group of the
bullied individual, meaning the composition of the racial group within the school
(OBrien 2007). Power differences in schools that often contribute to the likelihood
of bullying are related to superior numbers (Horton 2011; Rigby 2008). In line
with this, it has been noted that racial bullying is less likely to occur in racially
diverse schools and classrooms (Juvonen et al. 2006). Simply, it is the expressed
power over the statistically identified minority group that largely promotes race as
a significant factor.
Furthermore, it is about the identification as being socially different, or what has
been identified as differentness that influences the likelihood of racial bullying
occurring (Lahelma 2004). It is about the difference of specific students who do not
hold power in the school community (Englander 2007; Horton 2011; Thornberg
2011). Again, this is intended not to spark a debate about racial inequality but
rather to note that one cannot simply study race without understanding the social
and cultural dynamics of the school and surrounding community. Understanding
these help to explain the existence of a significant relationship (or lack thereof)
between bullying and race. The size of the group, the cultural attitudes and beliefs
about groups, and the perception of difference are all related concepts that interact
to influence rates of bullying of different racial groups. This, however, does not
mean race (as a static factor) matters, but rather that race is a fluid factor that is
determined by the social context in which it exists. Even intervention programs
that have been suggested to reduce racial bullying tend to emphasize greater
cultural sensitivity and tolerance of diversity in order to promote a positive school
climate (Spriggs et al. 2007).
Class
While race is a complicated factor, income is believed to be a better predictor
of bullying and victimization but is often masked by other factors (Hanish and
Guerra 2000; Patterson et al. 1990). For example, when evaluating cyber bullying,
108
it has been noted that bullying increased as a result of access to resources, which
allows for consistent use of technology that in turn increases the likelihood of
bullying (Erdur-Baker 2010; Li 2006). This means that students involved in cyber
bullying required a monetary investment. With the consistent interaction between
race and class, with whites often being associated at higher rates with middle and
upper classes, whites are more likely to be involved in cyber bullying than other
racial groups (Hinduja and Patchin 2009) because they have greater access to
computers and the internet.
Beyond interacting with race as an influencing factor, class has been found
to have a direct impact on bullying. In an evaluation of schools throughout New
Zealand, docile, or class identification was found to be a significant factor in
victimization (Raskauskas 2006). In a study in Denmark, it was found that lower
class backgrounds contributed to the likelihood of experiencing bullying, as well
as resulted in more extensive psychological and physical symptoms for these same
students (Due et al. 2003).
While class is important, as with the other factors, it is a comprehensive social
factor, not a static one. In a study of students, ages 11, 13 and 15, from 35 different
countries, it was identified that class is a significant factor, extending from the
interactional level up to the societal (Due et al. 2009). The researchers, as with
the studies above, concluded that children of the lower classes were at greater risk
of being victimized. But the impact of economic inequality extends beyond the
individual social factors, finding that economic inequality at schools increased
the likelihood of experiencing bullying. In fact, for every level of difference
between the wealthiest and the poorest in a school, there was a 13% increased
likelihood of bullying at the same school. Economic disparity did not stop here,
as greater inequity throughout a country increased the likelihood of students in
the country experiencing bullying by as much 34%. Essentially, poor students
who attend schools that have higher levels of economic inequality, which are
located in countries that display greater income disparity among its inhabitants,
are at an increased likelihood of being bullied than any other student. Furthermore,
acceptance of such inequality also promotes negative treatment of those who are
at the economic lower end, as well as their acceptance of victimization. All of
this has an exponential impact on these students. Victimized students are isolated
and marginalized, increasing the likelihood of suffering both physically and
educationally. This suffering enhances the limitations in their social, emotional,
educational, and eventually, economic development, further isolating them, thus
increasing the probability of being bullied. Simply, money matters.
Socioeconomic status has been identified as translating into cultural status
within a school, isolating working class students and elevating upper and middle
class students. Simply, in school, class matters for status (Dumais 2002). The
importance of class in defining social status is influenced by the materialistic
values of a society (Schor 2004). Hite and Hite (1995) noted that children can
become aware of materialism and its importance in a society as early as two years
old. Research has noted that highly materialistic people define self-worth, and
109
ultimately social status, by materialistic gains (Richins 2004). These beliefs in

children can impact educational goals and attainment (Ku et al. 2014), as well
as result in psychological and behavioral problems (Flouri 2004; Kasser 2005).
Greater focus on materialism can also influence childrens perception of peer
judgment (Banerjee and Dittmar 2008), which increases the likelihood of being
involved in bullying experiences. While children are aware of, and focused on
materialism in determining status, especially in more materialistic societies
such as the United States (Schor 2004), it should be noted the relationship is not
unidirectional. In effect, the relationship between consumerism and social status
is an interactive one. Banerjee and Dittmar (2008) found that students who are
rejected, or perceive rejection can increase their focus on materialism in an effort
to fit in, showing that bullying in more materialistic cultures can potentially lead
to a greater emphasis by a victim on materialistic values. The impact on a students
well-being is heightened, as students struggle with both the difficulty of not being
able to achieve media defined standards of materialism along with not fitting in
at school.
It is not, however, that money directly determines such negative outcomes. As
with other social factors, class should not be evaluated as a static causal factor, but
instead as an interactive social concept, along with class being a performance. It
is not solely about class standing, or really what should be identified as the class
standing of a students parents, but instead it is the expression of that status within
interactions. Differences in financial backgrounds, even if sometimes minor, are
exacerbated by the way students present themselves (Klein 2006: 64). A common
form of relational aggression among girls is to comment on clothing and attire,
often recognizing lower quality clothing as a way to isolate and marginalize a
student (Simmons 2003). This reflects the materialistic values that students
strive to own the right items in order to fit in, and not doing so can push them to
further feel a need to pursue materialistic items to reduce the likelihood of further
peer rejection. It is predominantly about the perception of class standing that is
important and the subsequent impact on social interaction and status.
We need to consistently remember that bullying is not a natural adolescent
behavior, but is conditioned by the surrounding social environment (Due et al.
2009: 912). Class, while an important factor, is represented through appearance
and material items, such as technology, all of which exist within a social context
and are given importance and meaning through social interactions, as defined by
the culture. It is more about the representation of difference within the culture and
the value placed on the distinction between groups that determines the impact of
a factor on a bullying experience. Simply, class matters because children respond
to it.
110
Data Box 6.3Students with special needs and bullying

Compared to their peers without disabilities, students with disabilities are at greater
risk for being bullied (Rose et al. 2009; Saylor and Leach 2009). In one convenience
sample, over fifty percent of students diagnosed as having learning disabilities, mental
retardation, speech-language disabilities, or autism, reported that they had been teased,
harassed, stolen from, hit or beaten up by peers at school (Baumeister et al. 2008).
Whitney and colleagues (1994) found with 93 students with disabilities (matched with
peers in their inclusion classroom) that 55% of students with mild learning disabilities
and 78% of students with moderate learning disabilities experienced moderate to
severe bullying, compared to only 25% of their matched peers. Furthermore, it has
been noted that students in special day classes or segregated settings were victimized
more often than those in more inclusive settings (Kaukiainen et al. 2002). The
increased likelihood for victimization of students in segregated classes is that isolation
from the general education students limits student opportunities to learn and practice
social skills, as well as limits the development of a protective peer base (Mishna 2003).
While in general it is difficult to compare reports of children diagnosed with
different disabilities, children with learning disabilities have been found to be more
likely to be nominated by peers as victims than those without learning disabilities
(Baumeister et al. 2008; Humphrey et al. 2007). In one study, sixty-seven percent
of children with learning disabilities reported being victimized by peers compared to
only twenty-five percent of their peers without disabilities (Whitney et al. 1994). But
victimization is not limited to learning, as students with language impairments are
bullied at rates higher than their general education peers (Knox and Conti-Ramsden
2010), as are students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] (Humphrey
et al. 2007).
Similar to previous findings reported above, in our research we found bullying
victimization at higher rates for students with disabilities. In a USA sample, 55
students enrolled in mild/moderate classrooms across 8 schools in a large urban school
district participated in this study. The gender distribution was 62% male and 38%
female. Twenty-nine percent of students were in grades 46, 51% were in middle
school (7th and 8th grade) and 20% were in high school. The Olweus questionnaire
was used to ask about experiences with different forms of bullying but the delivery
protocol was modified to be appropriate for different functional levels of students. The
results showed that 46% of students reported being bullied at least once in the past
2 months with 22% reported being bullied frequently (23 times or more a month).
In comparison, students without disabilities, 27% of students identified having been
bullied at least once in the past 2 months, and another 17% frequently. While there is
less of a disparity for those students who were bullied frequently, which emphasizes
that bullying is about difference and dominance and not specific demographic issues.
Still, it is clear that bullying students with disabilities in general is a common, and
likely accepted practice, since 58% of students with disabilities have experienced
bullying at some time in the past 2 months. Regarding different forms of bullying,
among the sample the most frequently reported form was mean names related to their
disability (45%) and verbal bullying not related to their disability (35%), followed
by rumors/talking behind their back (29%), physical bullying (27%), and exclusion
111
(16%). Strategies for modifying anti-bullying programs to include students with

disabilities are discussed in Raskauskas and Modell (2011).
Baumeister, Audrey, Eric Storch, and Gary Geffken. 2008. Peer victimization in
children with learning disabilities. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal
25:1123.
Humphrey, Jamie, Eric Storch, and Gary Geffken. 2007. Peer victimization in
children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Child Health
Care 11:248260.
Kaukiainen, A., C. Salmivalli, K. Lagerspetz, M. Tamminen, M. Vauras, H. Mki,
and E. Poskiparta. 2002. Learning difficulties, social intelligence, and selfconcept: Connections to bullyvictim problems. Scandinavian Journal of
Psychology 43:269278.
Knox, Emma and Gina Conti-Ramsden. 2010. Bullying risks of 11-year-old children
with specific language impairment: Does school placement matter? International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 38:112.
Mishna, Faye. 2003. learning disabilities and bullying: Double jeopardy. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 36:336.
Raskauskas, Juliana and Scott Modell. 2011. Modifying anti-bullying programs to
include students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 44:6067.
Rose, Chad, Dorothy Espelage, Steven Aragon, and John Elliot. 2009. Bullying
and victimization among students in special education and general education
curricula. Exceptionality Education International 21:214.
Saylor, Conway F. and John Bradley Leach. 2009. perceived bullying and social
support in students accessing special inclusion programming. Journal of
Developmental & Physical Disabilities 21:6980.
Whitney, Irene, Peter Smith, and David Thompson. 1994. Bullying and children with
special needs. Pp. 213240 in School Bullying: Insights and Perspectives edited
by P. Smith and S. Sharp. London: Routledge.
Interaction
Deliberations about different factors and how each contributes to bullying is a
limited discussion, especially in terms of using the information to establish
intervention and prevention programs. While schools have the opportunity to
collectively address intolerance for all students, establishing programs at each
school that address each demographic experience would not be financially or even
socially feasible. Bullying is a socially dynamic experience and individuals who
are involved engage with the event based on social expectations that comprise
all of who they are, not individualized categories. The experience, as with the
intervention, would be difficult to establish as a one size fits all program. As
Patricia Hill Collins (2000) has presented in her discussion of the Matrix of
Domination, we are not represented through additions of demographics, but
rather who we are is a complex matrix that influences the experiences of power
112
and inequality. A woman of color is not discriminated against more than a white
woman simply by adding up the two areas of prejudice. Instead, her experience
differs in context and expectation.
Social factors often interact with one another to produce different outcomes.
For example, boys bullying girls has been found to be positively related to social
acceptance by other boys, but only during middle childhood. As they enter
into adolescence, such behaviors become unacceptable, largely because social
expectations change in relation to boys relationships with girls. This does not
mean violence disappears, for violence against women is present in many countries
and cultures throughout the life of a woman. Instead, the act of boys physically
bullying girls is less acceptable among older students, although dominating them
is considered acceptable. In contrast, being a victim of females, as a boy, changes
from being unacceptable in childhood to being more accepted as boys get older.
This is likely because interactions with girls are deemed to be an expression of
interest on the part of the girls (Veenstra et al. 2010). In this same study, it was
found that as boys got older, their bullying of other boys was more acceptable to
females, expressing a level of dominance in the culture. This justified the power
of such boys, as well as perpetuated the power dynamic both in the school and
the society. In a sense, the interaction of age and gender altered the experiences
of all involved, changing the dynamics, expectations and ultimately the behaviors
of the students involved. To assume that these issues persist in all social contexts,
or that the style, intention and reasoning for bullying exists across groups fails to
address the social dynamics that encapsulate bullying, all of which are perpetuated
through the interactions.
In another example, Kupersmidt et al. (1995) found that low-income white
children from single-parent homes who live in middle-income areas tend to suffer
more from bullying, as they have identified that they feel socially isolated from
peer groups. In this context, class interacts with community to increase bullying,
but that does not fully address all of what is occurring. In the same study, it was
noted that African American boys from low-income, single-parent families are
less likely to experience bullying if they reside in middle-income communities.
It removes them from experiencing other factors that may increase the frequency
of bullying, such as having fewer resources at school or interacting with groups
(e.g., gangs) who may increase the likelihood of experiencing aggression. In this
study, the interaction between race, class and community resulted in significantly
different outcomes for students, necessitating a different response from the school
and surrounding community. Similarly, in the study by Koo et al. (2012) on Asian
Americans, it was noted that there is an interaction between race and immigration
that alters the experiences for groups of students. Unless all factors are considered
simultaneously, it homogenizes the Asian American population by dismissing
distinct characteristics, such as immigration and gender (142). In the study,
female Asian American immigrants were at the greatest risk for being victimized.
They suffered in silence, assuming, much more than boys because of cultural
influences, that their victimization was a result of karma.
113
Intervention efforts need to recognize the complexity of these interacting

variables. For example, to address homophobic victimization, the issue is not the
same for each group. To focus on boys who display behaviors that are closely
aligned with femininity (as conceived by the majority group), such as flamboyance
in clothing and dancing, fails to understand the complexity of the issue. Such
behaviors are often not as big an issue for African Americans (Pascoe 2007), for
style in some areas can be a part of masculine displays, or Cool Pose1 (Majors
and Billson 1993). It has also been noted that the increased negative impact on
heterosexual youth who experience homophobic victimization is significant for
white students but not for racially underrepresented students. The difference
emphasizes a distinct cultural dynamic that alters the experiences (Poteat et al.
2011). For many ethnic minorities, the fear of being outed is a common form of
sexual harassment that accompanies their experiences. If homophobic slurs are the
focus of intervention, ethnic minority LGBTQ youths fears are not fully addressed.
Ultimately, focusing on the social factors of students to better determine a
response to bullying will be limiting because programs cannot be created for each
group that does or could exist. As discussed throughout, bullying is about sociallydefined difference, so addressing the culture of the school and the acceptance of
social difference and diversity can have a similar impact as trying to address each
social factor. While schools are presented with the good fortune to educate about
social discrimination, intervention and prevention programs should be focused on
educating all stakeholders on how to engage in an ethic that values difference and
opens oneself to difference (Davies 2011: 284). Now, the emphasis on acceptance
can be focused on key issues that tend to exist within a school, such as racial
bullying or homophobic slurs. The intention though is to focus on acceptance
of diversity, which helps to develop (and be part of) a comprehensive, wholeschool response, no matter what the focus of the intervention is. It is through
this focused engagement that change to the culture of a school can occur. This
approach influences the interactions between groups, reducing the bullying that is
occurring, or at least the acceptance of bullying, and thus brings about a change to
the rates of bullying.
1The term references the masculinity performance by African-American men who

are denied access to normative portrayals of masculinity (education, career), assuming an
attitude that draws on aspects of the hegemonic standard but defined through the resources
that they have access to, such as emotional control and physical displays. For a complete
discussion, see the book Cool Pose by Majors and Billson (1993).
Chapter 7
Groups: Producers and Reproducers of a

Bullying Culture
The determination of the culture of bullying that exists within a school occurs
by a confluence of factors, all of which coalesce into the social expectations
and acceptances by those who inhabit the school. While social forces outside of
school help to determine the behaviors of those within the school, it does not
mean students will automatically engage in these behaviors at school (Friedrich
and Trane 2002). This is why, as discussed in Chapter 5, the culture of the school
is an important determinant of bullying. It is not, however, the school on its own
that reproduces bullying, nor the power structure that encompasses the bullying
experience. As discussed in Chapter 2 in the production of power, we argue that
the establishment of a bullying culture occurs through interactions that create and
sustain it, determined through social relationships and group dynamics (Joronen et
al. 2012; Salmivalli 2010).
Bullying is a social phenomenon, occurring in front of others 85% of the time
(Pellegrini and Long 2002). While the emphasis on understanding and intervening
in bullying has traditionally been on the individuals directly involved (e.g. victim,
bully), bullying is a group experience. Bullying increases status in the group, both
for the bully and the bystander who joins in with the bullying (Witvliet et al. 2009).
More to the point, bullying has been shown to develop social cohesion among
students (Garandeau and Cillessen 2006). For victims, social isolation is a primary
factor that increases the likelihood of being victimized (Hodges et al. 1999). New
students are more likely to be bullied because they lack social contacts that might
dissuade bullying. Ultimately, bullies choose victims who are marginalized based
on the perception of their limited social or emotional resources (Hodges and Perry
1999; Salmivalli and Isaacs 2005).
Bullying is all about group connection and status. Classes and schools that tend
to display fewer divisions among groups indicate more inclusive environments
which have been found to have lower rates of bullying. Meanwhile those
schools that have a greater distinction between groups and/or less interaction
between groups tend to have higher rates of bullying (Salmivalli et al. 1997).
When considering the encompassing social context that produces bullying, it is
important to evaluate the social dynamics of groups. The social dynamics serve as
a predictor of bullying, influence the likelihood of being victimized and continued
victimization, and perpetuate the culture of bullying throughout a school.
116
TeacherStudent Relationships
While much of the discussion in this chapter centers on peer relations, the
relationship between teacher and student is an extremely important association
too. Previous research has identified that teachers have a profound impact on the
persistence of bullying within a school as they help to define the culture (BlainArcaro et al. 2012; Ttofi et al. 2008). In effect, teachers have power that allows
them to establish and sustain rules and expectations for interactions throughout
a school. This power derives from their social status as a teacher and their role
within the institution at-large. In this context, the school acknowledges their
power by hiring them and then giving them support as they engage in their duties.
Students acknowledge their power by succumbing to the requests of the teacher,
which is important, as the power does not exist unless expressed and responded to.
While teacher power is important throughout a school to help maintain order,
it has been found to be especially true in bullying. A teacher is a primary element
in the reduction of bullying and changing the culture of a school (Espelage and
Swearer 2010). But to be successful at challenging bullying, the teacher needs to
be supported by the school (Migliaccio 2015). Without support from the school,
any attempts by a teacher to stop bullying by his or herself will likely have limited
impact on bullying rates because the anti-bullying culture is less likely to be
accepted by the prominent stakeholder groups: students and other teachers. In
contrast, if a teacher attempts to change the culture, and his or her actions are
supported by others at the school, then attempts are more likely to be successful.
Simply, the impact teachers can have is enhanced further as other groups, i.e.
stakeholders (students, parents, community groups) support the challenge, which
highlights the whole-school response. More important, as additional groups express
support of teachers as they confront bullies, the more powerful the teachers are
because multiple groups are recognizing their power in interactions. For example,
if parents do not support teachers, then the self-efficacy of the teacher to change
the culture is diminished (Hornby and Witte 2010; Stipek 2012).
Data Box 7.1Teacher focus groups
In a study of 96 teachers from grades K5 who participated in 12 grade specific focus
groups (two for each grade level), talked about their understanding and experiences
about bullying in their schools (Migliaccio 2015). As consistent with past studies,
teachers displayed a deep understanding of the academic definition of bullying but
struggled to describe the experiences of bullying and when to respond.
When describing experiences at their schools, the teachers often relied on
stereotypical attitudes about bullying, bullies and victims. Most of the teachers
normalized the experiences as a part of growing up or being in school.
117
Students do need to learn how to deal with it [bullying] themselves. It is their chance
to learn how to overcome common obstaclesThird Grade Teacher.
This whole bullying thing is just everywhere, anytime, its just a lack of understanding
from people in generalFifth Grade Teacher.
At the same time they pathologized the involved students: Bullies as violent deviants:
There is a cell in San Quentin [Prison] with his name on itSecond Grade Teacher.
Bullies in my experience really want to hurt somebodyFirst Grade Teacher.
They described victims as psychologically limited and at-fault:
Something in their psychological makeup just makes them a victimFifth Grade
Teacher.
It is interesting to think of the victims and why they let that continue to happenFourth
Grade Teacher.
They also identified social factors, such as family, community, and limited resources,
including lack of administrative support, as reasons bullying persists in the school.
The principal is too focused on academics to help change anythingFirst Grade
Teacher.
As a result, the responses by many of the teachers were limited, often relying on
students to bring about the change on their own.
Choose good friends is that youre saying there are kids in the classroom you
shouldnt be choosing. This puts it all on the victimFourth Grade Teacher.
There were some teachers who moved beyond the normative ways of describing
bullying, and offered more positive responses that showed the responsibility to bring
about change in the culture of schools.
The environment dictates what type of social interaction is acceptableFourth
Grade Teacher.
The differential responses by teachers are related to the construction and maintenance
of an identity as a teacher. Without support from the school, teachers are less inclined to
attempt to respond to bullying for fear of failing. The teachers, in effect are protecting
their teacher identity, one that is extremely important to them, by avoiding the spoiled
identity of not being able to stop bullying.
118
In contrast, teachers who worked in schools that had anti-bullying programs

expressed a greater understanding of bullying and felt more inclined because the
support at their workplace made responding to bullying less likely to result in spoiling
their identity. In effect, they did not fear failing at being a teacher because trying to
respond was supported by the school. Essentially, what we see is that anti-bullying
programs not only help students to become responders but also impart a supportive
atmosphere to teachers to respond as well.
While teachers define the dynamics of what is acceptable in social interactions

(Hallett 2007; Yoneyama and Naito 2003), an important relationship is the one
a teacher has with a student. In a study of high school dropouts, one of the most
common reasons given by former students was a negative relationship with teachers
(Finn and Rock 1997). Many studies attempt to measure the factors that influence
school connectivity, including small social forces, such as social networks (Moos
2003), classroom level factors, such as preparedness and preparation for class
(Finn and Rock 1997) or macro factors, such as school size (Hawkins et al. 1998);
all of these factors, either directly or indirectly, are correlated with the relationship
with a teacher (Hallinan 2008). In fact, a common part of the definition of school
connectedness is the degree to which a student experiences a sense of caring
and closeness to teachers (Wilson 2004: 298). A study of New Zealand students
(Raskauskas et al. 2010) challenged previous findings that victims displayed lower
levels of connectedness to schools (Raskauskas 2006), as victims in the new study
did not identify a low connection to school. The researchers concluded that the
disparity in findings was likely related to the measurement of the quality level of
relationships with teachers (Raskauskas et al. 2010), showing the importance of
teacher-student relationships for connecting kids to school.
Even when parental support is not as prevalent for some victims, a positive
teacher relationship can mitigate the negative impact of bullying on these students
(Conners-Burrow et al. 2009). A study in England found that positive teacher
relationships reduced safety concerns for students in the classroom, although not on
the playground (Boulton et al. 2009). In an even more compelling study, MurrayHarvey and Slee (2010) used path analysis to determine the impact of multiple
factors on bullying, including teacher-student relationships. Using data from 888
Australian students and 621 teachers, they found that developing a positive social
relationship with students beyond academic engagement has significant impact on
bullying rates.
In contrast, there is a correlation between rejection by peers and a negative
relationship with the teacher, which predicted loneliness and lower grades (Mercer
and DeRosier 2008). In a retrospective study of 225 Jamaican university students, it
was noted that negative outcomes, such as depression and oppositional behaviors,
were significantly related to being bullied by a teacher. Furthermore, the study
showed the negative relationship with a teacher had a greater impact than negative
relationships with peers (Pottinger and Stair 2009).
119
It is not just about victims and their connection to teachers. In a study of

1,168 students, 813 years old, in New Zealand, it was found that bullies and
bully/victims identified as having weaker relationships with teachers. Negative
relationships with teachers reduce the educational impact they can have on
students, especially influencing younger students on pro-social behaviors such as
empathy (Raskauskas et al. 2010). Furthermore, positive relationships between
teachers and bystanders increases the likelihood of developing trust of teachers
that the students will be supported in their actions, which allows bystanders to
respond to bullying when it occurs (Frey et al. 2009). What is important is that
teacher relationships with students, whether bully, victim, or bystander have a
tremendous impact on the experience of bullying. These relationships can mitigate
negative outcomes, increase pro-social interactions and change the overall climate
of a classroom, and potentially the culture of a school (Yoneyama and Rigby 2006).
Social Groups
Social groups influence interactions in a number of ways, including direct impact
on behaviors. As Cairns et al. (1995) identified in their study of peer influences,
children engage in similar behaviors as their friends. While much of this can be
recognized as like-minded individuals developing relationships, as Espelage et
al. (2003) concluded from their study of 384 Midwestern United States middle
school students, it is not solely about self-selection. In line with this, Cairns et al.
(1995) found that for students whose friends engage in bullying behavior, their
own bullying actions increase over the course of a school year. Like Cairns et al.
(1995), Witvliet et al. (2009) concluded that students are more likely to assume
similar roles, such as that of the bully, as their friends. Furthermore, Espelage et
al. (2010) identified that the behaviors engaged in by the group persisted over
time, with all members falling in line with the group dynamics. Simply, group
expectations influenced aggressive behaviors. What is even more important is that
the researchers found that grade did not matter.
The behaviors determined by group standards are not limited to engagement
in bullying. Bystander intervention, while influenced by individual factors, is also
determined by peer group expectations. A student is more likely to defend a victim
if he or she feels the peer group perceives such behaviors in a positive light (Gini
2007). Pozzoli and Gini (2010), in their study of 456 Italian adolescents identified
that while individual characteristics influenced behavior in intervention, such as
feelings of social competence, peer expectations about intervention displayed a
greater effect on bystander actions than individual characteristics. Espelage et
al. (2012) asserts that while individual factors contribute to student choices to
intervene, what is paramount is group support. In fact, as the authors identified
in reference to intervention, empathy training or bystander intervention without
attention to decreasing the amount of bullying perpetration within ones primary
peer group will not yield positive effects (2012: 794).
120
Data Box 7.2Bystander attitudes and responses

For the NZ sample witnessing bullying was related to attitudes and activities with
peers. Below the significant relationships are identified, showing relationships between
witnessing, helping behaviors, and attitudes toward reporting and feeling safe.
Frequency of witnessing bullying was related to the following:
Behavior and intentions around bystanding
I join in bullying (r = .18, p < .001, N = 1701)51% of students who scored
above mean on witnessing bullying were also above the mean in join in
bullying).
I would tell an adult if I saw someone being bullied (r = -.05, p = .03,
N = 171349% of above mean on witnessing were also below mean on would
tell an adult).
Note: I would tell an adult was also negatively correlated to I join in bullying
(r = -.20, p<.001, N = 168369% of those who say they would tell an adult
were also below the mean on join in bullying.)
I tell bullies to stop when they are mean to others (r = .05, p = .03,
N = 169635% of those above mean on witnessing were also below mean on
telling bullies to stop).
Bystanders are more likely to join in on bullying than they are to inform or stop
the bullying. This emphasizes the importance of changing the culture to denounce
bullying as an acceptable behavior so that bystanders are more likely to challenge the
bully than join in.
Attitudes about reporting
Kids who report bullying are tattling or telling tales (r = .07, p = .002,
N = 1690, 61% were above the mean on both witnessing and believing that
kids who report are tattling).
Bystanders do not respond because of their perception of those who do, which further
highlights changing the perception of bullying and their role in stopping it.
Feelings of safety
I feel safe from bullying at my school (r = -.23, p<.001, N = 169059% who
witnessed bullying scored below the mean on feeling safe).
This finding is the most important, as it conveys that even though bystanders are
joining in, it is likely related to fear, for if they felt part of the bullying experience they
would be less concerned about becoming victimized. It emphasizes the impact that
bullying has on all students.
121
While the impact on behaviors, both positive and negative, is important, groups
have an even more profound influence on the culture of a school, often through these
same behaviors advocated by the groups. As discussed in Chapter 2, power derives
from group interactions and through groups. It is the group that assigns status to
its members, so the bullies are dependent on the peer group in the realization of
their status goal (Salmivalli 2010: 113). To review, power does not exist unless
acknowledged by others, which can occur through a number of ways: Directly
accepting or identifying it, indirectly allowing it to exist by not responding, or
simply by being unable to avoid the request, demand or pressure put upon by the
individual or group, i.e. being unable to stop the bullying. While we often assume
that the individual owns the power and expresses it through his or her actions, it
is not until the power is acknowledged by others that it exists. For example, while
popular kids are more likely to be able to define the norms of a classroom (Dijkstra
et al. 2008), it is the acceptance, support and eventual practice of these suggested
standards by bystanders that produce the norms. Bystanders often react in support
of bullying because they see the bully as having more power and thus could have
a more negative impact on their status (to note, the power did not exist until the
bystander perceived it and reacted to it). In a sense, bystanders bully, or refrain
from defending in an attempt to fit in (Juvonen and Galvan 2008). Furthermore,
the more marginalized the victim becomes, the more that bullying the student can
help to strengthen the solidarity within the group and the community at large
(Hamarus and Kaikkonen 2008: 338), which further justifies the bullying, and
thus, advocating for the power of the bully.
When some students attend to a victim after an incident, notifying the victim
that they did not like what happened, it often occurs in a private venue because the
attending bystanders do not want to become the next victims. Bystanders avoid
being publically affiliated with victims out of fear of being associated with them
(Mikami et al. 2010). While the bystanders are informing the victim he or she is
not alone, which can help to reduce the negative impact on victims as it promotes
a social connection (Aboud and Miller 2007), it does little to challenge the social
power given to the bully because it did not occur within a social interaction
that others could witness. A more common reaction than supporting a victim is
to limit interaction with a victim or potentially bully the victim, both of which
marginalize the victims in the school. In a survey of 408 German 1219 year olds,
researchers concluded that victims and bully/victims were consistently identified
as being outside the central core of the community and related groups (Festl and
Quandt 2013). What this ends up producing are bullies who have extensive social
networks, often out of fear, but also out of a need of bystanders to be connected to a
dominant social group. This was the intention of the bully, whether acknowledged
or not: to obtain social power.
The important context of this is that power is derived through group expressions,
which means that power can be taken from the bullies when groups refuse to
accept or acknowledge the power. The majority of bystanders dislike bullying,
meaning that if the greater percentage of bystanders do not accept the power of the
122
bully then that power does not exist. This is the purpose of changing the culture to
one that does not accept bullying as a means to obtain power (Olweus 1993). The
importance of group dynamics in producing and reproducing power in a school
makes bystanders a primary component of changing the culture (Gottfredson and
DiPietro 2011; Jacobsen et al. 2011). A primary emphasis of any anti-bullying
program must then be on educating bystanders.
In-Group Bullying
While peer groups often work as a protective factor that reduces the likelihood
of being victimized, groups that value or condone aggressive behaviors report
more involvement in bullying (Grotpeter and Crick 1996; Mishna et al. 2008). In a
study of 237 7th grade students in Taiwan, Wei and Jonson-Reid (2011) found that
bullying commonly occurs within groups, including groups that both individuals
involved identify as friends. Students (girls in particular) in the United States have
identified that they are more likely to experience relational aggression among
friends (Crick and Nelson 2002; Neal 2009). It is easier to engage in control
and dominance over friends if there is the threat of using knowledge gained
in confidence against the individual, as well as the power to use the threat of
terminating the relationship if victims resist (Grotpeter and Crick 1996). Many
students remain friends with the bully, even after such aggressive behaviors,
feeling that the friendship is too important from which to withdraw (Hodges et al.
1999). This is key because intimacy is important for secrets to be used against a
student (Grotpeter and Crick 1996). A Canadian study of students in grades 4 and
5 who were victims of bullying found that 89% of the students had experienced
some form of bullying from friends, some of who did not initially recognize the
behaviors as bullying (Mishna et al. 2008). Of the students who identified as
having been bullied by friends, only one-quarter of them chose to refrain from
continuing the friendships. Many of the children persisted in differentiating the
behavior from teasing, not wanting to identify the behaviors as bullying, as though
doing so would create a cognitive dissonance for the student, making it difficult
to remain friends.
Relational aggression is often a tool used to compete for intra-group status
(Duncan and Owens 2011) (see Chapter 6 for a more detailed explanation).
This does not mean that such acts are readily accepted throughout the world.
In a study of 194 8th grade students in India, Bowker et al. (2012) found that
relational aggression was not positively associated with popularity and that
engaging in such forms of bullying was perceived negatively; still, friends
who engaged in overt aggression were more likely to be perceived as popular,
especially among boys.
123
Social Network Analysis

Analyzing the relationship between bullying and groups should not focus solely
on who bullies who but should also consider the network dynamics of the group
as they have a tremendous impact on the bullying (Neal 2007). For example,
bullies are more likely to be located in popular positions within their peer group
(Olthof et al. 2011). Considering this within the discussion of bullying extends
the understanding beyond individual characteristics. This does not mean that
demographics do not influence bullying but that it moves the discussion into a
more social context, allowing for a full comprehension of the issues surrounding
bullying. Social network analysis identifies and locates students within social
groups based on ties to others, as well as strength of relationships. Xie et al. (2002)
studied 510 4th and 7th grade Caucasian American girls, and in 2003 (Xie et al.)
489 1st, 4th and 7th grade African American girls, finding in both that students
who were more central in the social network expressed higher levels of relational
aggression. Centrality is determined by the proportion of relationships that a
child has with grade-level peers (Neal 2009: 739). The importance of centrality to
relational aggression is access to knowledge about the potential or present victim
(Grotpeter and Crick 1996).
Furthermore, centrality also means a greater number of stronger ties that
help to expand rumors and gossip, which also work to strengthen connections to
others in the group (the non-victims). Linking with peers who are more central
has exponential status implications compared to connecting with isolated peers.
In a study of 144 United States urban 2nd grade students, Neal (2009) found that
centrality within the social network was significantly important to the experience
of relational aggression, with less central students more likely to experience
relational aggression. As Neal further identified, only moderate levels of centrality
mattered for bullying within a group, meaning you did not have to be the most
central figure to bully. More centralized students not only are better able to
produce information for rumors but are better connected to sustain them beyond
the immediate individuals, thus having a greater impact.
While centrality is important to understanding the experience of bullying, it
was also identified that groups that have excessive centrality, and whose most
central figure(s) are not feeling challenged by someone else (i.e. a student who is
gaining more ties and thus greater centrality) are less in need of using relational
aggression tactics to display power (Faris and Felmlee 2011; Neal 2009). Still, as
Faris and Felmlee (2011) found, the highly centralized individuals do not need
to use aggression because there is little threat to their status. If another group
member, however, were to begin to establish both more and stronger ties, maybe
by becoming closer with some of the more central group members or even
developing friendships with group members with whom they did not initially
interact (changing from a weak tie to a strong tie), the primary central student may
become threatened. Fear of challenges to status, and thus popularity can result
in centrally located students engaging in relational aggression (Simmons 2003).
124
The fear can be warranted, since relational aggression can serve as a means to
attaining greater status and power (Faris 2012). Faris also found that students who
assume a bridging position in a network, or are the ties that link networks, have
the greatest possibility of increasing their status in the dominant group. This is
related to the access students in bridging locations have to alternative networks,
in case they are unable to achieve a higher status position within the dominant
group. These students, however, cannot have too many bridging ties, i.e. having
many friends who have many friends (Faris 2012: 1228) as they can be identified
as hangers-on and thus less likely to become a more central member of the
group. In the opposite direction, less centrality in a group reduced the likelihood
of bullying because there are fewer connections to a wide array of individuals, and
thus the connections are spread across a greater range of students.
This does not mean network centrality does not contribute to out-group
bullying. As identified, being socially marginalized increases the likelihood of
being bullied. While the number of ties is important, it is also with whom the
ties bind. The Huitsing and Veenstra (2012) study of elementary students from
the Netherlands analyzed social networks within a classroom. A primary finding
was that bullies chose victims because they were marginalized in the classroom
network, thus limiting the impact on their status. This means that by bullying kids
who were not connected to others within the bullys network, there was no one
within the group to identify the behavior as inappropriate because no one had a
tie to the student. Furthermore, the bullys popularity increased, or at least their
power, because he/she was able to display dominance over another student in the
classroom, one who had fewer potential defenders.
Even when the victims were defended, it derived from students who were not
within the primary clique, thus having no impact on the status of the bully. In
fact, victims were often defended by other victims of the same bully. Having a
defender who is not able to provide protection or comfort due to possessing high
levels of risk factors himself or herself has been found to contribute to greater
negative effects and more victimization (Hodges et al. 1999; Hodges and Malone
1997). Furthermore, other bystanders were less likely to defend a victim because
interacting with a student who did not fit in with the norm of the group would not
be supported by others in the network, thus threatening a students status in the
network (Sentse et al. 2007). This issue about social norm comes back to centrality
in the social network. If bullies tend to have more centrality within the group, and
often the school, this means that their behaviors were often perceived as being
part of the school norm, or at least are accepted as representations of the school
norm. Students who did not follow along with this norm, i.e. socially different
(victims) (Mouttapa et al. 2004; Thornberg 2011) or supported those who were
marginalized (defenders) (Huitsing and Veenstra 2012), were perceived as deviant,
which promoted the actions, and thus status of the bullies. Ultimately, acceptance
of bullying behaviors was influenced by the culture of the classroom and school
(Sentse et al. 2007). What should also be noted concerning network analysis of
out-group bullying is that bullying roles are not stagnant. Instead, they are largely
125
determinant of the network dynamics and who is involved in the bullying event
(Huitsing and Veenstra 2012). For example, bullies become defenders when
students within their group were bullied by others from outside the group (Adler
and Adler 1995).
Network relationship analysis of bullying, and relational aggression in
particular, must also consider the density of the group, or the number of social ties
and the strength of the ties within the group. In other words, how many friends are
friends with others in the group, and how strong are those ties. Groups in which all
of the members are really close, and who usually do not interact with others outside
of the group, are extremely dense social groups. Higher density often facilitates
higher levels of relational aggression because there may be more knowledge
of personal information. In fact, Grotpeter and Crick (1996) found that higher
levels of intimacy among a social network increased the likelihood of relational
aggression. Having greater knowledge about individuals increased the likelihood
of being able to use it against them (Adler and Adler 1995). Furthermore, greater
density in a clique also increased the likelihood for competition for status, i.e.
multiple individuals are more likely to be located near the center of the network,
maintaining a constant threat to power (Neal 2009). In other words, having an
extremely dense social network increased the likelihood of competition in an effort
to gain more power or, more than likely, to retain the perceived status a student
already had (Adler and Adler 1995; Neal 2007; Neal 2009). Finally, higher density
limited the ties outside the group, establishing greater dependence on the group
for social connections and the threat of losing those ties contributed to students
remaining friends even when bullied. In out-group bullying situations, density was
also important, as high density identified groups were more likely to be bullied,
probably because they were all victims defending one another (Huitsing and
Veenstra 2012).
Intervention: Social Groups
Recognizing the group dynamics of bullying and the importance of interactions
among individuals, in particular social networks, allows for intervention to target
social groups and context. For example, one of the best protective measures that
schools can undertake is to link a victim, or potential victim to a social network
(Grotpeter and Crick 1996). Being a loner or not having friends around can
increase risk, while having friends available can be protective against bullying.
Being in the company of at least one friend significantly decreased the likelihood
of being bullied or experiencing the negative outcomes associated with bullying
(Kochenderfer and Ladd 1996). In fact, with the USA sample it was found that
being afraid of being bullied at school was negatively related to having good
friends at school (r = -.14, p<.001) and the number of good friends at school was
related to the number of groups/teams/clubs to which a student belonged (r = .18,
p <.001). Social groups not only provide friends, but the groups provide individuals
126
who victims perceive as being able to provide safety and support, further reducing
future victimization (Hodges et al. 1999). While establishing protective groups
is important to help those who are victimized, focusing on the individual often
yields limited results, including failing to introduce programs that prevent future
bullying within the culture. This means schools need to instill in students the
impetus to reach out to and support victims. Some programs attempt to influence
peer-modeling behavior (Frey et al. 2009). For example, Rigby and Johnson
(2006), in a study of 200 Australian primary and secondary students, identified that
after viewing a video that presented peer intervention to bullying, students were
more likely to intervene. While this program begins to address peer dynamics by
inspiring bystander response, the effect is limited in impact on the larger culture.
It needs to be a more programmatic or institutional response that engages groups
and social networks, as opposed to educating individuals.
Orientation programs that link new students to groups, including transition
programs into middle school (or even high school) creates a sense of belonging
and reduces the likelihood of being bullied (Farmer et al. 2011). Programs that
establish groups whose role is to integrate new students into the school culture
can offset any social isolation that can contribute to bullying of new students
(Hodges and Boivin 1999). Furthermore, research has found that individuals who
have greater levels of social integration have better mental health and are less
likely to commit suicide (Tsai et al. 2014). In schools, social integration has been
found to have a positive influence, both academically and socially on students
(Ainsworth 1989; Crittenden 2008), which Putnam labels as bridging capital, as
it reflects gains for students as a result of social relationships. A study in Australia
that evaluated practices to integrating Aboriginal children to aid in advancing
their education found that connected children felt safer to expand their networks
and grow academically (Thorpe et al. 2013). At schools that have instituted more
comprehensive integration practices note a safer environment overall for all
students (Coleman 1988). In a study (Dyson 2012) comparing social integration
in China and Canada for students with disabilities, the findings indicated that in
both countries, a school-wide response contributed to greater social integration for
all students. This response included educating students and teachers, along with
changing the school culture. The researchers of the Aboriginal students (Thorpe
et al. 2013) also noted that while school structures can be established to develop
more inclusion for students, an important factor was parental connectedness,
displaying that a whole-school response involves more than just the school and
must reach out to the home environment in order to create lasting change.
Increasing the social integration of marginalized students, such as new
students, strengthens a students connection to a school because of the positive
experiences among other students. Positive interactions within the school
environment enhance a students school-based identity as it limits distresses that
are related to the identity, In a similar vein, challenges or negative reactions to an
identity can increase distress that are associated with the identity (Thoits 1983;
2011). A weaker identity can then drop in importance to the student (Thoits 1991),
127
with other identities assuming a more prominent position in a students life. This
is, in part, why there is higher absenteeism for victims, as school declines in
importance to them because they are not as wedded to the school-identity (Holt et
al. 2007b). For the Aboriginal children discussed above, establishing a structure
that positively integrated the students into the school allowed for their school
identities to develop, which was shown to aid them both socially and academically
(Thorpe et al. 2013). Still, the limited connection of the Aboriginal parents to the
school slowed this development because full social inclusion occurs when more of
a students social network is connected. A similar disconnection between ethnic/
language minorities and marginalized groups has been observed in other countries
like the USA and UK (Turney and Kao 2009).
Extensive ostracism, exclusion or social isolation for any student increases the
likelihood of being bullied, which further contributes to the negative development
of a school-identity. In essence, heightened risk for bullying limits the social
integration into the larger social network, and further disconnects the victim from
the school. This limitation to the social network occurs in part because other
students do not wish to engage with isolated students because they fear it will put
them at risk for victimization (Schwartz and Proctor 2000), which contributes to
continued isolation and increased psychological distresses for the victim (Thoits
1991; 2011). This is why students who are bullied are more likely to suffer from
psychological stresses, even to the point of suicidal ideation. All of this points
to the importance of establishing an environment within a school that works to
integrate students into its culture, especially at-risk students, whose status, and
ultimately their identity are more susceptible to distresses when the environment
is less accepting.
To further counteract the ostracizing of students, some schools identify groups
that are inclusive in their social dynamics in order to connect victims, or potential
victims to groups that would accept them. These might include peer mentors, gaystraight alliance, or community outreach groups, which limits the negative impact
of bullying on a victim as well as increases the likelihood of reporting bullying
when it occurs (Garbarino and DeLara 2002; Raskauskas et al. 2010; Wilson
2004). Public recognition by a school of such inclusive groups also identifies to
all stakeholders not only the availability of such programs but their importance in
the school culture.
Socially inclusive groups have the potential to have far-reaching effects on
victims. First, because of their dynamics on inclusion and social acceptance,
there is less likelihood of the rejection of victimized students who are usually
marginalized in the school because of their social struggles (Schwartz 2000;
Schwartz and McFadyen-Ketchum 1999; Smith and Brain 2000). Interaction
within such social networks can also enhance marginalized students social
struggles by educating them on more appropriate social behavior. In a study of 70
children in the Netherlands, it was noted that peer interaction in general influences
socio-emotional development (Bukowski and Adams 2005; Deynoot-Schaub and
128
Riksen-Walraven 2006), including the maturation of conflict resolution skills

(Newcomb and Bagwell 1995).
In a parent perception study in the United States, it was noted that avoidant
behavior of social interactions enhanced the negative impact of being victimized
on a students socio-emotional development (Troop-Gordon and Gerardy 2012).
In an analysis of 670 3rd, 4th and 5th graders in the United States, the researchers
concluded that students who interact with social groups are less likely to be
negatively impacted in their socio-emotional development after they are bullied
(Schmidt and Bagwell 2007). Interacting with positive groups, or pro-social
groups, has been found to help students develop more pro-social behaviors in
interactions (Wentzel et al. 2004). In effect, linking victims with socially accepting
groups on a school campus helps to harbor the individual from future victimization
because the bullies now are confronting a group who may be less likely to accept
their power. Furthermore, connecting with inclusive groups also can socialize the
victim to reduce behavioral characteristics that may put them at future risk. In
contrast, students who are marginalized and isolated in a school are going to be
limited in their development of skills, which enhances the likelihood of being
targeted for bullying (Schwartz and McFadyen-Ketchum 1999).
One group, or class, that has been shown to have a positive impact on mental
health and social development is drama club (Hakamies 2007; Wright 2006).
It instills a connection to a group, while also allowing for students to develop
appropriate means for emotional expression and regulation. A quasi-experimental
design of a drama program was constructed to identify the impact bullying and
victimization had on 134 4th and 5th level students in Finland. The program was
established to improve social relationships, develop socio-emotional skills and
overall change the context of interactions between all students, and students and
teachers. The researchers (Joronen et al. 2012) found that a drama intervention
positively influenced social relationships, which in turn resulted in a lower
victimization rate among experimental group students. Still, the program did not
significantly change bullying throughout the school, which can only occur when a
whole-school response is implemented. But as a component of a larger response,
the social skills can be meaningful.
Intervention: Bystanders
A larger social response that involves the whole-school is to educate other students to
react (Migliaccio and Raskauskas 2013). As discussed above, bystanders influence
bullying within a school by their responses. They can inform teachers (Frey et al.
2009; Salmivalli et al. 2004) or support victims, either through connecting with
them after or by directly intervening during a bullying episode (Gini et al. 2008).
The importance of involving bystanders is to emphasize a student-centered
approach to violence prevention (Pack et al. 2011: 128). This is a primary
aspect of changing the culture of bullying in a school, especially since teachers
tend to see only one-third of all bullying instances (Leff et al. 1999; Pellegrini
129
and Bartini 2001). More important, bystanders, when they work in a concerted
effort and are supported by others, inform the bullies, and school in general of
the acceptability of positive active response. When bystanders intervene, they
reduce bullying experiences by a rate of 50% (OConnell et al. 1999). The impact
of bystanders and peer intervention has been shown to be consistent throughout
the western world (Salmivalli and Isaacs 2005). In a meta-analysis of bystander
intervention programs, using secondary data from throughout the United States
and Europe, it was found that students can learn to intervene and have a positive
impact on bullying (Polanin et al. 2012). The impact was the same in comparing
the United States and Europe, including that younger children were less impacted
by bystander education, likely because of their heightened reliance on adults for
interaction and conflict.
The role of bystanders is important as they define power, who has it and how it
can be acquired. By interjecting responses that challenge the bullying culture, they
are identifying that bullying is not acceptable. They are also reducing the likelihood
of the label of victim that is being placed on a student persisting long term.
A United Kingdom study of 931 students, ages 1115, analyzed the implementation
and impact of peer support programs to increase feelings of safety and subsequent
bullying fears. The researchers found that awareness of the peer support program
had a significant impact on students feelings of fear and safety at the school (Cowie
et al. 2008). Peer intervention has even been found to have a greater impact than
adult intervention (Cowie and Hutson 2005), which emphasizes the importance of
peers and groups in general in producing and reproducing the culture of bullying
throughout a school.
Intervention: Mix it Up Day
Educating students on responding should not be the only school-wide program
that can be introduced. Over ten years ago, the Southern Poverty Law Center
established a program titled Mix it Up Day that is implemented throughout the
United States. The program was established to address bullying by breaking down
barriers between cliques (Religious right group Hektner and Swenson 2012)
that, as articulated throughout this chapter, is a primary component of continued
bullying. The program is being used at 2979 schools throughout the United States,
and has recently been implemented in schools in eight other countries (http://
www.tolerance.org/mix-it-up/map). It has been consistently identified as having
a positive impact on acceptance and interaction among students (Peebles-Wilkins
2006). The program implements a plan that has students interact with and have
lunch with students from different groups in their school with the intention of
learning about a diversity of factions, cultures and/or cliques with whom they
do not normally engage. Some schools conduct the experience through random
assignment, while others have students choose other groups with whom to
interact. The focus of the program is group engagement, which limits labeling
130
of individuals within a group through stereotypes or myths. It is about reducing

differences between groups.
Intervention: SAFE Ambassadors Program
Students become more directly involved in changing the culture when they feel
they have a voice (Garbarino and DeLara 2002). One program that attempts to
give them voice is the Safe School Ambassadors (SSA). SSA is a comprehensive
program that addresses multiple issues of bullying; a primary aspect of it is
to introduce the voices of multiple cliques and/or groups, who are often not
represented. Administration identifies the socially influential opinion leaders
of the diverse cliques and interest groups, forming them into a committee who
work directly with a school administrator. This newly formed committee discusses
school issues and events, formulating responses that can help to reduce aggression.
From these discussions and decisions, committee members can then wield their
social influence to promote a healthy school environment through their social
network (Pack et al. 2011: 128).
This SSA program, based on the principle of the bystander impact, focuses on
educating leaders within each group in the school to respond to bullying among
friends, while also instilling in them an ability to give voice to issues as they arise.
All of the students receive training on developing connections with diverse groups,
as well as facilitating conflict resolution among friends. In a study of around 70
6th-8th grade students in the United States, along with adult mentors (who also
received training), students gradually became more active in intervention and were
more willing to inform adults about situations. This outcome was likely because
they had been given a voice during the process, along with the training (Pack et
al. 2011). This has the potential to change the culture of the school by reducing
school-based disciplinary actions as a result of violence or aggression among
students. The program, while educating students, was based on the notion of group
dynamics, making sure the diversity of groups were represented so all had a voice
within the culture of the school, which also works to increase connectivity for all
groups of students.
Conclusion
Overall, one intention of any intervention must be to address group dynamics
within the school. While this alone does not address bullying throughout a school,
it influences a primary aspect that perpetuates the culture of bullying. It determines
path to power among members and the appropriate behaviors that can be used to
access or display power. Such actions can also work well to protect victims from
being victimized, along with helping to reduce harm from victimization. It is about
accentuating the positives of group dynamics within the culture, while limiting the
negative impact groups can have if left to determine power and dominance within a
131
school. In effect, focusing on group dynamics and being aware of the perpetuation
of a bullying culture through interactions should be a central component of any
whole-school response to bullying.
Chapter 8
Everything You Thought You

Already Knew About Bullying
The smallest or most inner layer of the ecological model is the individual child and
the factors that directly shape his or her development. Of the past 40 years most
research in bullying prevention and intervention has focused on individuals within
the bullying dynamic identifying related outcomes, profiles of those involved,
and programs targeting the individuals involved (Horne et al. 2011). As the most
researched area this information has been the most widely distributed so is likely
to be familiar to parents and educators.
While we do not discount the importance of interventions to raise awareness
about bullying and educate students and faculty on responding, we argue that
it must occur within the larger social framework. For example, an ostracized
individual who is educated on appropriate responses to bullying has much less of
an impact on the larger culture than educating an individual who is a central fixture
in the larger network, or who has been identified as having sociometric, or actual
popularity. Focused education, such as identifying specific individuals or groups
who will have the greatest impact reflects a social perspective of bullying. Change
in the culture is even greater when the education occurs simultaneously with other
changes throughout the school. Interventions have either focused on changing
individual behavior or changing the school environment, with few addressing the
complex relationship between individuals behaviors and the school environment
(Johnson et al. 2011: 333).
Importance of Individual Response
Despite our emphasis on the social context, it is important to note that the
individuals involved are part of the problematic interactions and need to be
addressed as part of any solution. Response to individual needs and education is
important because bullying can influence the well-being of everyone involved:
the bullied, bullies, and bystanders. It is important to assist and support those
individuals who are impacted by bullying, as they are primary perpetuators of the
bullying culture. Those who engage in bullying behavior report low grades and
missing class due either to disciplinary actions or deteriorating relationships with
teachers or classmates (Orpinas and Horne 2006). Bullying others in childhood has
even been associated with delinquency in adolescence, and long term outcomes
including abusive relationships and criminal records in adulthood (Olweus 1993;
134
Perren and Hornung 2005). Generally, this is because bullies learn that aggressive
strategies are successful ways to get what they want.
Similarly, being a victim of bullying has also been associated with negative
outcomes for the individuals. It can hurt their performance in school both in
the present and long term (Rueger et al. 2011). Specifically, being bullied has
been found to contribute to lower academic performance and school avoidance
(Hoglund 2007; Nishina et al. 2005; Schwartz et al. 2005; Smith et al. 2004). In a
survey of 785 United States sixth grade students, Graham, Bellmore, and Juvonen
(2003) found that victims of bullying and harassment were more distracted in
class due to fear of bullying and that when they fell behind in class they often had
a difficult time catching up.
Along with interruption to the childs educational progress, victimization has
been shown to increase the likelihood of short and long term health risks, both
physical and mental (Hanish et al. 2003; Solberg et al. 2007). The risk to children
is heightened as cyberbullying becomes more prevalent, since avoidance is more
difficult (David-Ferdon and Hertz 2007). Being bullied has consistently been
found to be related to students reports of general distress, anxiety, depression
and even thoughts of suicide (Barchia and Bussey 2010; Hawker and Boulton
2000; Meland et al. 2010; Nishina et al. 2005; Overbeek et al. 2009; Swearer
et al. 2011; Thijs and Verkuyten 2008). Victims of bullying often complain to
parents and teachers of health issues like stomach aches, headaches, and problems
sleeping, including in Finland (Kumpulainen et al. 1999) and the United States
(Dinkes et al. 2007). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) concluded that victimization alters
the production of HPA, which influences a childs ability to deal with stress,
increasing the likelihood of health risks, both physical and mental. In Britain, it
has been noted the serotonin levels were different for victims (Sugden et al. 2010).
Bystanders are indirectly affected by bullying. Bystanders watch bullying
occur and feel powerlessness to stop it (Horne et al. 2011). These effects are
compounded by the fact that most bystanders have anti-bullying attitudes but do
not take action to stop it since they fear retaliation (Salmivalli 2010). This can also
lead to bystanders feeling bad about themselves for not intervening when they
see someone being bullied and/or blaming the victim to reduce guilt in not acting
(Garandeau and Cillessen 2006; Juvonen and Galvan 2008). Most of the research
into negative outcomes of bullying has been correlational, raising the question
of whether these effects are actually the reasons children are bullied. These
characteristics do not define who these students are within the social dynamic
of bullying.
Roles in Bullying
Creating profiles of who is involved in the bullying dynamic and identifying
the characteristics associated with different roles has dominated the bullying
literature. Those involved in bullying are often classified into specific categories:
135
(1) Bullies or bully only are children who are engaged in bullying behavior but
are not victimized by others; (2) Victims or victim only are children who score
high on victimization but do not score high on bullying behavior; (3) Bullyvictims both bully others and are being bullied themselves; and (4) Bystanders
are children who witness bullying that occurs but are not actively engaged in
bullying or targeted by others. (The different responses bystanders can take in
these interactions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7; in this chapter we will
predominantly address them as one group). Children who do not fit into any of
these categories are called not involved, and often are used as the control model
when determining characteristics and/or impact on bullies, victims and/or bullyvictims. For example, Perren and colleagues (2010) looked at 374 Swiss students
and 1,320 Australian students and found that victims and bully-victims reported
more depressive symptoms than bullies and non-involved children.
As can be seen in Data Box 8.1 the characteristics of children who fall into
each role can differ.
Data Box 8.1Comparison of characteristics by role in bullying
The following data is a reflection of the NZ sample for Not Involved, Victim Only, Bully
Only, and Bully/Victim on previously related individual variables. These categories
are calculated based on mean + 1SD and higher on victim and bullying subscales.
ANOVA comparisons with Tukey post hoc were conducted comparing Not
Involved (n = 1295), Victim Only (n = 242), Bully Only (n = 56), and Bully/Victims
(n = 36) on acceptability of aggression, depression, self-esteem, and the number of
proactive strategies for responding to bullying. These analyses yielded the findings
below that support the conclusions from previous research:
Acceptability of Aggression: The bully only group was significantly higher
than all other groups on acceptability of aggression (p<.001; F(3, 1625)
= 16.66, p<.001).
Depression: The victim only and bully/victim groups were significantly
higher on depression than bully only or not involved (p<.01; F(3, 1625)
= 65.49, p<.001).
Proactive Strategies: Interestingly, victims were significantly higher on
endorsing proactive strategies for dealing with bullying compared to other
groups (p<.001). It is possible this is due to on the job training where they
have had to learn the strategies to protect themselves where the other groups
may not focus as much on these strategies. (F(3,1672)=9.22, p<.001).
Finally, consistent with prior research groups differences were seen for self-esteem.
The not involved group scored highest on self-esteem followed by bully only, victim
only, and then bully/victim. Not involved was significantly higher than the other
groups (p<.01), but bully only and victim only did not significantly differ from each
other (F(3,1622)=19.06, p<.001).
136
The sections below identify characteristics of bullies, victims, bully-victims and

bystanders, elaborating on who these children are, and how they connect to the
social experience of bullying.
Bullies
The behaviors of bullies have long been explained by one of two approaches. One
approach blames bullies social skill deficits, whereas the other model explains
bullying in terms of bullies pursuit of power and status (Olthof et al. 2011; Pellegrini
2002; Pellegrini and Long 2002; Salmivalli and Peets 2009b; Vaillancourt et al.
2003). In line with the first model, cross-national research has shown that bullies
report more moral disengagement (Pornari and Wood 2010) and lower moral
awareness (Menesini and Camodeca 2008; Menesini et al. 2003), as well as less
empathy (Caravita et al. 2009; Gini et al. 2009; Jolliffe and Farrington 2006) than
their peers. They are also more likely to demonstrate a hostile attribution bias
where they think that others are being aggressive when they are not, which is used
to justify their own aggression (Newman et al. 2001; Pornari and Wood 2010).
We, in this text, draw more on the notion that bullies are in pursuit of power,
but we do not discount that certain students may be more inclined to engage in
such behaviors. Some of these same deficient characteristics, however, could be
developed as a bully persists in their behavior. It also should be noted that focusing
too much on the deviance of bullies fails to acknowledge the social experience
of bullying and how its persistence exists within a culture that allows, and often
supports it. In other words, while some students may display attributes that may
increase the likelihood of them bullying others, the behavior persists because
others in the community allow it to occur.
Despite stereotypes of bullies as social outcasts and loners that resort to
bullying because they lack social competence, some studies have shown that at
least a percentage of bullies are actually socially skilled (Bjrkqvist et al. 2000;
Hymel et al. 2010). In line with the second view of bullying that children are
skillful and intentional in bullying in order to gain position, power, or dominance,
Garandeau and Cillessens (2006) review of literature found that most bullies
do have social competencies that reinforce their bullying behavior. Adolescent
bullies have been found to prefer to be dominant (Bjrkqvist et al. 1982; Ojanen
et al. 2005) and at least one study (Phillips 2007) indicated that they are aware
of their strategic use of bullying behavior to achieve that. Olthof and colleagues
(2011) found with 1,129 Dutch 9 to 12-year-old students that there is a group of
bullies who have a strong desire to be dominant. We are not assuming that all
bullies engage in bullying for the same reason, such as bully-victims who are
likely looking to connect with others because of their marginalized status as a
result of limited social skills, even if that connection is a result of students fear of
them. In fact, in this same study of Dutch students, it was noted that not all bullies
desire dominance.
137
Bullies are often perceived by peers to be powerful and popular (Caravita et al.
2009; LaFontana and Cillessen 2002; Olthof et al. 2011; Salmivalli 2010). On the
other hand, peer assessments show that, while often viewed as cool or popular
(Rodkin et al. 2006), at the same time bullies are often not liked by their peers
(Goossens et al. 2006; Salmivalli 2010). As discussed in Chapter 2, this is the
distinction between actual and perceived popularity. Despite not being liked by
many, most bullies do have friends, enjoy peer relationships, and belong to larger
social clusters than victims or bully-victims. They tend to affiliate with friends
who are also pro-aggression and exhibit similar frequencies of bullying (Espelage
et al. 2003; Shin 2010). Similarly, bullies often have conflicted relationships
with parents, perceiving lower levels of parental support, particularly emotional
support and warmth, than children who are not bullies (Demaray and Malecki
2003). In general, bullies tend to have poor relationships with family members
and report bad family functioning in general and sometimes aggression used in the
home (Duncan and Owens 2011). The key idea is that most bullies exist and really
persist as bullies in social groups, connecting with kids who engage in similar
behaviors, supporting the persistence of such actions. It is also likely that they
also bring these attitudes toward dominance from outside the specific interaction
or social group, whether from their treatment in the past by peers or simply from
their relationships with family members. While bullies are a distinct group, their
experiences are not independent of the larger culture, but in fact exist within it.
Victims
Victims of bullying have a very different profile. Research has consistently found
that victims are physically smaller than bullies, denoting a power differential
(Espelage and Swearer 2003; Hazler et al. 1997). It has been found that physical
size/build (height or weight) different from average or notable physical appearance
(e.g., hair color, glasses, attire, etc.) are risk factors (Coloroso 2003; Espelage and
Holt 2001; Underwood 2002), even when the bullying is not occurring face-to-face
(Caravan 2006). For example, being overweight increases the likelihood of being
bullied (Craig et al. 2010). In a study using the World Health Organization Health
Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey (HBSC) that examined childrens
experiences from 35 countries, it was found that obese students were more likely
to be bullied (Janssen et al. 2004). The most common form of bullying students
suffer from tends to be verbal, with most overweight students experiencing some
form of verbal attacks (Nabors et al. 2011; Puhl and Latner 2007). While all
bullied overweight students experienced verbal bullying, boys were more likely to
suffer from overt attacks, while girls experienced relational aggression (Pearce et
al. 2002). Furthermore, older, bullied overweight boys increased in their bullying
of others, indicating a social learning process for obese and overweight male
students (Janssen et al. 2004). This is related to masculine expectations of physical
dominance, meaning overweight boys learn to use their size to dominate (Griffiths
et al. 2006).
138
Even with the increased likelihood of overweight students being bullied, it is

not simply about their weight. It is likely related to the perception that they are
socially, emotionally and/or physically vulnerable to being bullied, lacking the
emotional strength or social support (or ability) to defend themselves. If being
overweight is a negative social value in a community, and other students are
aware that the overweight students self-satisfaction is low, there is an increased
likelihood this student will be bullied. Furthermore, it is likely no one will help him
or her and that he or she will be blamed (both by bystanders and him or herself)
for the bullying. Bullying obese students is socially derived and interactionally
perpetuated. This supports the consistent argument made throughout Chapter 6,
and really throughout this text that bullying is not about specific social factors but
the social framework of the experience. This relationship between larger cultural
values and power is similar for all physical characteristics that people typically
identify being bullied about: weight (too fat or too thin), height (too tall or too
short), having glasses or braces, physical disabilities, hair color, and skin color.
Victims are often perceived as not only physically different but socially
different as well. Victims tend to be more submissive, have fewer leadership skills,
and are generally more withdrawn compared to non-involved classmates (Perren
and Alsaker 2006). Children who are bullied are often perceived as anxious or
insecure and often engage in attention seeking behavior (Olweus 1993; Schwartz
2000; Swearer et al. 2011). We also know that there are certain traits that put
children at increased risk for being bullied. Emotional displays of frustration,
crying and emotional outbursts can demonstrate weakness to bullies (Garner and
Hinton 2010; Olweus 1993; Smith and Brain 2000). Victims also tend to not take
responsibility for taking action, and can engage in learned helplessness behaviors
where they give up and look to others to do things for them (Meland et al. 2010;
Seligman and Peterson 1986).
While being emotional can increase the likelihood of being victimized, this
is only one factor that contributes to the probability of being bullied. We want
to ensure that the assumed perspective is not that the victim is at fault for their
experiences. Often when the focus is on the individual, the assumption is they have
the power to change, or at least that they are at fault for their personal situation.
Whether this is believed by the bystanders or solely by the victim, this view
enhances the negative impact on a victim. We want to constantly remind ourselves
that even when looking at the individual in order to protect the student, we are
not inadvertently shifting blame to the student. Using such findings to identify
potential or present victims is important to assist (and protect) them, as well as
to help change the culture. We must always remember, however, it is occurring
within a social situation and that the larger culture is responsible for the existence
of bullying. Furthermore, it is important to remember that a primary aspect of the
definition of bullying, as discussed in Chapter 1, is power, and that the victim does
not have the power to stop the bullying.
139
Bully-Victims
Bully-victims are also sometimes called provocative victims or aggressive
victims. While bully-victims are not qualitatively different from those who are
only victims (Sekol and Farrington 2010), their experiences when bullied tend
to be more extreme, meaning bully-victims are the group most strongly affected
by bullying (Dukes et al. 2009). Bully-victims, while a distinct group in bullying
research, do share similarities with both victims and bullies (Pollastri et al. 2010;
Sekol and Farrington 2010).
Unlike victims who are passive and withdrawn, bully-victims display anxious
and aggressive reactions that make them targets of peer aggression (Schwartz
2000). Bully-victims tend to be younger and less socially conscientious (Sekol
and Farrington 2010). Bully-victims also tend to have problems with emotional
display rules and poorer emotional self-regulation than victims or non-involved
classmates (Garner and Hinton 2010). It is often bully-victims behavior and
difficulties regulating emotion that lead to their difficulty with peers (Pellegrini
2002; Schwartz 2000). Perren and Alsakers (2006) study with 344 5 to 7 year
olds found that bully-victims tend to be less cooperative and social, often having
no playmates. Bully-victims tend to be socially rejected by peers and not seen
as popular (Farmer et al. 2010; Pellegrini 2002; Salmivalli 2010). Bully-victims
also report lower peer support in general compared to both bullies and victims
(Meland et al. 2010). When bully-victims do associate with peers they are most
likely to associate with other aggressive children like bullies or other bullyvictims (Perren and Alsaker 2006; Shin 2010). While not yet fully studied in
depth, it is believed that bully-victims are the individuals most recognized by
teachers, staff and even other students as being troubled students, and may be
reported as bullies to authorities. This is likely because of their low network ties
and limited power (and popularity) throughout a school. Focusing on this group
not only further ostracizes this group of students to the point of removal from
the school but also removes focus from the primary group of bullies who are part
of the larger culture.
Bully-victims also tend to have troubled relationships with parents. They
report the lowest levels of perceived parental support when compared to victims,
bullies, and not involved (Demaray and Malecki 2003; Duncan 2011). Similar
to bullies, parents of bully-victims tend to be low in supervision, warmth, and
provide inconsistent discipline (Duncan and Owens 2011), which Nickerson and
colleagues (2010) theorized leaves bully-victims feeling like they have to fend
for themselves. The combination of this plus aggressive modeling from domestic
violence or child abuse can lead them to alternate between the helplessness of
victimization and the power tactics of bullying (Duncan and Owens 2011).
Bully-victims can also be found in cyber bullying, although this area has not
been studied as extensively. Vandebosh and Van Cleemput (2009) found with
2,052 students 12 to18 years old in Belgium that cyber-victims were more likely
to also have been involved in cyber bullying as a bully or bystander. Kowalski,
140
Limber, and Agatston (2012) found with 3,767 middle school students in grades
6 to 8 in the USA that 21% were victims only, 13% bullies only, 18% bullyvictims, and 48% not involved. Burgess-Proctor, Patchin, and Hinduja (2008)
found with a cross-national sample of 3,141 adolescent girls (aged 8 to 17 years)
that 27% of victims responded to cyber bullying by bullying the person back,
25% did nothing, and 17% avoided the computer or stayed offline. Reactive
or responsive bullying by a victim may explain high levels of bully-victims
within the cyber bullying literature but future research needs to examine this
potential connection.
Bystanders
There is no specific profile for bystanders but research indicates that most bullying
occurs with other students present (Craig et al. 2000b), and bystanders are negatively
impacted by viewing bullying experiences. A 2002 study of 12- to 16-year-old
students from the United Kingdom found that bystanders who witnessed instances
of bullying often presented higher rates for emotional struggles, and were at even
greater risk than the victims of substance abuse (Rivers et al. 2009). Bystanders
can be divided into different roles based on whether they take action to join the
bully or help the victim (Hawkins et al. 2001; Salmivalli 2010; Salmivalli and
Peets 2009a; Salmivalli and Peets 2009b).
Passive bystanders, while not actively engaged in a bullying incident, allow
it to persist because their lack of action condones the behavior (Gini et al. 2008;
Olweus 1993). While some students morally disengage, justifying the aggression
in some manner (Obermann 2011), sometimes even blaming the victim (Thornberg
2011), most recognize a problem with the bullying but choose not to intervene
because of a fear of becoming a victim (McLaughlin et al. 2005). In fact, Craig and
Pepler (1996) identified that upwards of 8090% of bystanders disliked it when
bullying occurred, but only 11% attempted to intercede. Yet, for students who do
assist, they not only help the victims but also gain positive benefits by feeling safer,
as well as developing greater self-efficacy (Carr and Schmidt 1994). Even these
students, however, are pressured into avoiding contact with the victim because
it would be committing a form of social suicide if they did (Thornberg 2011:
261), further isolating the victimized student. Hamarus and Kaikkonen (2008)
found that bystanders will even avoid working in groups with the victim to avoid
affiliation with the marginalized individual, even when that same student could
help them succeed in the project. This creates a social quandary for bystanders
(Salmivalli 2010).
Those who do take action to help someone being bullied have strong antibullying attitudes, are empathetic, have confidence to effect change, are emotionally
stable, cognitively skilled, and have a popular or positive peer status (Caravita
141
et al. 2009; Salmivalli 2010). On the other hand, children who help bullies tend to
have pro-aggression attitudes and lack empathy (Poyhonen and Salmivalli 2008).
Finally, those who do not take action to either defend or help the bully tend to
have high empathy but lack confidence that they can successfully take action to
help or defend the victim (Gini et al. 2008). Ultimately, as with the roles discussed
above, bystanders exist and persist within a community, often influenced by social
relationships, and even social circumstances. Response by bystanders does not
solely exist within each student but is influenced by the culture in which the
bullying is occurring.
Many intervention programs attempt to empower students to take action to
assist victims who are being bullied (see Orpinas and Horne 2006). In doing so,
students are not only taught that they should respond but are also informed of
the social support if and when they do respond. It then becomes important for
other stakeholders to support any positive response by a bystander, increasing
the likelihood of future responses. However, some bystanders may not have
the skills or the knowledge to stop bullying and may feel guilty for not doing
anything and become secondary victims of the bullying process (Newman et al.
2001). Any intervention program should include specific strategies and skills to
teach bystanders if it is advocating for students to intervene in bullying. Some of
these programs are identified in Chapter 7 in discussions about group dynamics in
bullying and the importance of bystander intervention.
Individual-level Response
Individual-level prevention and intervention activities target bullies, victims, or
bystanders and are generally based on the idea that bullying is in part the product
of a lack of information or poor skills (social, cognitive, or behavioral) (Orpinas et
al. 2004; Spence 2003). As discussed throughout this text, responses need to occur
at all levels to truly impact the culture of the school. Preventions at the individual
level focus on (1) building awareness of what bullying is (causing reflection not
just on others but on ones own behavior), (2) cognitive reframing to reduce selfblame and encourage access of social support, and (3) skill building to both reduce
the likelihood of being bullied but also responses to bullying when it occurs.
Awareness Building
As discussed in other chapters, bullying is a behavior that thrives on secrecy
(Espelage and Swearer 2010; Raskauskas 2013). It follows that an important part
of bullying prevention as part of the Whole-School approach (see Chapter 5), is
to make the school a telling school. Often students do not report because they
142
are worried about being a tattle-tale so the first step is to teach students the
difference between tattling and telling.
Tattling:Reporting to get someone in trouble.
Telling: Reporting to get help for someone in need.
Any child who is bullied by another child or adult, or who sees another child being
bullied, is urged to tell an adult about the incident (Orpinas and Horne 2006).
Many people are afraid to talk about bullying thinking it might give students
ideas about bullying; this is not true. Dont be afraid to talk about bullying. Talking
about bullying reduces the culture of silence that surrounds it, and tells students
that teachers/staff know that it happens and care about stopping it. Ways to start
the dialogue about bullying are:
Hold classroom discussions about bullying. Use materials and links to
help facilitate discussions, including videos, books, and activities. It can
help expand knowledge about bullying as well as the student role in it
(Migliaccio and Raskauskas 2013).
Teach kids about bullying and their right to a safe school. Ask them to
identify behaviors everyone can adopt at the school to help keep it safe.
Reading books with students about bullying is an excellent way to start the
conversation on a level that is age appropriate. The Bullying Literature Project
identified lists of books that students and teachers felt were good for talking and
teaching about bullying behaviors (see Swearer et al. 2009). Having students write
their own stories about bullying is another way, especially with older students, to
assess current understanding of bullying and start the awareness process.
In order for children to know when to tell, it is necessary to raise awareness
about the issues of bullying as children often have a limited definition of what
it entails (Craig et al. 2000a; Newman et al. 2001). As discussed in Chapter 1,
students definitions are less precise and complete than teachers. An awareness
raising plan should include information about:

Bullying definition.
Effects of bullying on students. That it is a serious problem that hurts people.
How to recognize bullying, including different forms it takes.
A statement that the school will not tolerate bullying behavior and will take
reports seriously (only if the school is truly prepared to do this, of course).
Options for reporting alleged bullying (i.e., tell a teacher, leave a note in
the reporting box or on the teachers desk, reporting application for older
children or parents).
It is important not just to raise awareness of bullying among students but also staff,
parents, and administrators so everyone is on the same page. Raising awareness
143
can help make it clear to everyone that bullying is unacceptable, and that incidents
of such behavior should be avoided and reported when observed.
Anonymous reporting boxes or safe places for students to report can be very
helpful. It can be a box placed in the classroom or a public place like the library,
or can be just a procedure of leaving a note for a teacher, counselor or principal.
One school even reported that they started using the TipNow (http://tipnow.com)
website or mobile application for reporting bullying and other safety concerns.
Something to be aware of when using reporting boxes or other anonymous means
is that raising awareness of bullying will lead to an initial increase in reported
incidences. This is, in part because students who have been enduring the negative
experiences for a while now feel safe to seek out assistance. Furthermore, having
educated students about it, they are now more aware of what it looks like and can
more accurately report when bullying occurs. This increase in reporting paired
with anonymous reporting methods will sometimes lead to a misconception
that bullying is increasing; it is not. Instead, bullying is being recognized and
reported more. Another limitation to reporting is that the success in increasing
bystander response is that it is reliant on staff response to reports. When staff
are not adequately trained and are not responding appropriately, it can lead to a
rise in bullying. If students see that staff are not responding to their anonymous
reports, or are ineffectual, students will lose confidence and be less likely to tell
in the future.
The program Bully Busters (Grades K8) is designed to both increase student
awareness about bullying and increase teachers skills to respond to bullying
(Horne et al. 2003). Research has shown that the program is effective in increasing
knowledge and ability to prevent and respond to bullying, as well as reduction in
discipline referrals after the program is implemented (Horne et al. 2011).
Cognitive Training: Getting inside their head.
Another component in changing thinking about bullying is cognitive retraining
or actually altering the ways students think about bullying and those involved.
Bullying is not the fault of the person being bullied but many people blame the
victim as a way of justifying not doing anything to stop the bullying. It is important
that even in cases involving unskilled victims or bully-victims who may be viewed
as annoying, not to blame the victim. If their behavior is reinforcing the bullys
behavior or helping escalate the situation this is still not their fault. Because
bullying attacks are often presented in a personal way it is easy for victims to
internalize and blame themselves for the attacks (or for others to do so). This
makes victims less likely to get help and more likely to suffer from low selfesteem, depression, and suicide ideation (Swearer et al. 2011). So it is important,
as part of awareness building, to impress upon students that the responsibility for
aggression is always with the bully. This reframing is also used in the discussion
of social responsibility discussed in Chapter 5, which includes impressing upon
students that everyone has a responsibility to keep their school safe and either step
144
in when they see bullying or get help for the victim. As we advocate, it needs to
be more than just changing the attitudes and behaviors of those directly involved.
If a bully learns to engage in more appropriate behaviors but the overall culture of
the school has not changed then it is likely, if this student does not return to using
bullying behaviors, another student will utilize them.
Social Skills Group Intervention (S.S. GRIN) is a school-based group program
that targets children who have poor peer relationships. The program includes
cognitive-behavioral strategies and social learning to build skills for positive
relationships and change thinking. An assessment of the program showed that
students had less peer rejection and victimization, less anxiety, higher self-esteem
and greater self-efficacy. Even at the one year follow-up students who had gone
through the program reported lower anxiety and depression (DeRosier and Marcus
2005; Swearer et al. 2011). At its most basic form, Social-Cognitive Training is
social skills/assertiveness training, which occurs within a group that can enhance
the attitude of self-efficacy of students, moving beyond the individual education
and making it a social education.
A major component in changing the behavior of bystanders and school
staff to take action against bullying is self-efficacyor the belief that they can
do something to stop it. Self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think,
motivate themselves and behave (Bandura 1994; 1997). In reality self-efficacy can
be seen as confidence in the ability to stand up to the bully or resolve the problem
safely. Bystanders who defend victims have high self-efficacy and those who do
not respond are more likely to have low self-efficacy for taking action (Poyhonen
and Salmivalli 2008; Salmivalli 2010). In our NZ sample, students responses to
the item I tell bullies to stop when they are mean to others was correlated with
both I can affect whether or not there is bullying in my class (r = .25. p<.001)
and I would tell an adult if I saw someone bullied (r = .35, p<.001). In fact, more
than half of students who were above the mean for telling bullies to stop were also
above the mean for efficacy beliefs (52%) and reporting to an adult (63%).
Similarly, a study with middle school students in Greece, self-efficacy levels
for using aggression predicted both being a bully and being a victim (Andreou and
Metallidou 2004). Further, self-efficacy to enlist support from friends has been
shown to partially mediate the relationship between being bullied and the outcome
of depression (Barchia and Bussey 2010). Similarly, mutual friendships have been
shown to moderate the relationship between social anxiety and social self-efficacy
such that being bullied was higher for children with fewer close friends than their
peers (Erath et al. 2010).
Skill Building
Personal and social skills important to intervention with bullies are: outcome
expectations, coping responses, self-efficacy, and self-control (Orpinas and Horne
2006). Among other things, during an intervention students need to be provided
with clear consequences for aggressive behaviors, anger management skills,
145
empathy training, basic skills for entering and exiting peer interactions, turn taking,
and stress reduction techniques. Conflict resolution and communication skills can
also help in most of these interventions to create self-efficacy as they role play
non-aggressive behavior or assertive responses by victims. Use class activities that
promote self-esteem and assertiveness (e.g., conflict resolution training, martial
arts, self-defense, etc. A good book for teachers to use to build skills and facilitate
discussions is Stick Up for Yourself; this book deals with both assertiveness training
and self-esteem). Social Skills Training (SST) program (Fox and Boulton 2003),
for example, addresses the following skills: social problem solving, relaxation
skills, increased positive thought, non-verbal communication skill, and learning
new verbal strategies for responding to peers (Swearer et al. 2011).
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) for grades K5 builds
social and emotional competency, social cognition, and problem solving in
children. PATHS has also been shown to reduce aggression (Greenberg et al.
1998). Similarly, Life Skills Training (LTS), a comprehensive program for grades
69, is designed to help students build social skills. Target skills of this program
include: goal setting, assertiveness, conflict resolution, coping, stress reduction
and general social skills. Life Skills Training has been shown to reduce aggression
(Botvin et al. 1998).
Teachers often also need skills training too. Many pre-service teaching programs
do not include bullying prevention and intervention work, instead focusing on
classroom management and mediation skills. As a result, research in the UK showed
that 87% of surveyed teachers wanted more training on how to deal with bullying
or how to prevent bullying (Boulton 1997). Similarly, in Dublin, Ireland 95% of
teachers surveyed indicated that their training had not adequately prepared them
to deal with bullying (Byrne 1994). Still in a US sample, the majority of teachers
said they had received some training while at the school about student-to-student
harassment and were generally against it (Holt et al. 2011), but did not receive
this training in their credential program, and often felt they could use more (Holt
and Keyes 2003). Training can help teachers identify and respond to potentially
damaging victimization, but it is more than this. Teachers need to be trained on
consistently enforcing rules and reinforcing desired pro-social behaviors, while
not inadvertently reinforcing negative or unwanted behaviors. They also need to
be taught about protecting victims from re-victimization and empowering students
by including them in selecting a response. Also, strategies and training in verbal
responses to bullies or victims are helpful. Training may take many forms: staff
meetings, one-day training sessions, and teaching through modeling preferred
behavior. The California Department of Education (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/
se/bullyfaq.asp#teachers) provides the following list of skills and strategies that
teachers can use to address bullying in their classroom:
Model behavior that is inclusive and promotes respect for all students.
Provide students with opportunities to talk about bullying and enlist their
support in defining bullying as an unacceptable behavior.
146
Develop an action plan for what students are to do if they observe a bully
or are confronted by a bully.
Share with students the responsibility for the classrooms social and
physical environment to reinforce acceptable behavior.
Post and publicize rules against bullying, including fair and consistent
consequences for bullying.
Refer both the bully and his/her target to counseling.
Have students and parents sign behavior contracts consistent with written
and communicated behavior codes for students, teachers, and staff.
Maintain constant monitoring of cafeterias, playgrounds, and hot spots
where bullying is likely to occur but direct adult supervision may not
be present.
Take immediate action when bullying is observed so that both the target
and the bully know that mistreating someone is not tolerated. Notify the
parents of both the target and the bully and attempt resolution expeditiously
at school.
Create cooperative learning activities in which students change groups
for balance and interest, and equal treatment of all the participants may
be ensured.
Incorporate classroom activities designed to build self-esteem and spotlight
individual talents, interests, and abilities.
Implement a buddy system so that students pair up with a particular friend,
an older student mentor, or someone they can depend on for support,
particularly if they are new to the school.
Form student social groups that support children who are regularly bullied
by peers.
Develop peer mediation programs to help students learn to communicate
and resolve issues among themselves.
Coordinated Efforts
While these individual level strategies have been shown to be successful in the
short term, what we already know indicates that it is important to keep in mind that
in order to effect lasting change there needs to be more than just the individual-level
intervention. These are often steps in changing the culture of the school from one
that allows bullying to one that prevents bullying. The Whole-School Approach is
about coordinating prevention and intervention efforts to address all levels of the
school community. Simultaneous prevention efforts should be enacted at all levels
to change the culture of a school, including at the individual level (e.g. awareness
building, skill building, and cognitive training), coupled with group interventions
for students, a teacher task force to develop strategies for addressing bullying, a
school-wide reporting plan, and an administrators development of an anti-bullying
policy. This does not discount the importance of including community members in
147
the enactment of anti-bullying programs that extend beyond the school grounds.
The basis of the modified Social Ecological Model is that all systems interact and
influence each other so you cant focus on one system; you must address all of
the levels or systems that motivate and perpetuate those interactions. Each strata
impacts the other, whether it is challenging or reproducing the culture.
Final Thoughts
Many people are looking for the quick fix for bullying but it takes a longer
dedication to actually bring about change. You can start right away with awareness
building but know that bullying is not something that can be addressed once
(like during national anti-bullying week) and be expected to disappear. It is an
interaction that is occurring over and over and needs to constantly be part of the
discussion and an aspect of future planning. When change occurs, it will be slow,
but long-standing. This should not be disheartening. In fact, as stated above,
the initial result from instituting an anti-bullying program is an increase in the
reporting of bullying throughout a school.
An increase in the number of reported incidents is related to a number of
issues that are brought about by the cultural changes and programs that have been
instituted. First, elevated awareness of what bullying is will obviously result in all
stakeholders being able to identify and ultimately label bullying when it occurs.
Furthermore, greater awareness about bullying along with other anti-bullying
programs will inform stakeholders that not only is bullying unacceptable within
the culture but also that students informing adults is an acceptable response. Along
with this, students, as well as staff feel safer to report bullying, increasing the
likelihood of future reporting, especially once reporting procedures have been
established throughout a school. Finally, a school establishes clear policies and
procedures for all to follow in responding to and addressing bullying throughout
the school community. Simply, the multiplicative impact of numerous changes
boosts response rates. If the changes have also been made at the institution level
through policies, supported at the community level by family members, upheld at
the interaction level by teachers and administrators in their responses, and accepted
by students in everyday interactions, then rates will drop over time. This decrease
will not be because of one specific program but due to the shift in the attitudes
about bullying, as is a result of addressing the entirety of the culture of bullying.
What we hope is clear is that any response needs to occur at all levels and for
all stakeholders to have the greatest opportunity of establishing an anti-bullying
culture. Responses need to focus on changing the way students interact, reducing
the utility of accessing power through bullying behaviors, and acknowledging that
changing at any level contributes to and supports the changes at the other levels.
Ultimately, while the perspective is theoretical in nature it can be used to engage
and inform intervention and prevention practices throughout a school. What we
are attempting to convey throughout this text is that bullying resides within a
148
culture, and persists through social interactions, which means we all have a role
in changing it. It is a social problem that we all experience, and ultimately from
which we all suffer. But in the end, we have the ability to change it.
References
Aboud, Frances and Lior Miller. 2007. Promoting peer intervention in namecalling. South African Journal of Psychology 37:803819.
Adler, Patricia and Peter Adler. 1995. Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in
preadolescent cliques. Social Psychology Quarterly 58:145163.
Adler, Patricia and Peter Adler. 1998. Peer Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press.
Ahmad, Y and Peter Smith. 1990. Behavioural measures: bullying in schools.
Newsletter of the Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry 12:2627.
Ahmed, Eliza. 2008. Stop it, thats enough: Bystander intervention and its
relationship to school connectedness and shame management. Vulnerable
Children and Youth Studies 3:203213.
Ainsworth, Mary. 1989. Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist
44:709716.
Allen, Kathleen P. 2010. Classroom management, bullying, and teacher
practices. Professional Educator 34:115.
Anderman, Carolyn and Allen Cheadle. 1995. Selection bias related to parental
consent in school-based survey research. Evaluation Review 19:663.
Anderson, James. 2014. Providing a safe learning environment for queer students
in Canadian Schools: A legal analysis of homophobic bullying. Journal of
LGBT Youth 11:212243.
Andreou, Eleni and Panagiota Metallidou. 2004. The relationship of academic
and social cognition to behaviour in bullying situations among Greek primary
school children. Educational Psychology 24:2742.
APAZTKF, American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force.
2008. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? American
Psychologist 63:852862.
Aponte, Harry. 1990. Too many bosses: An eco-structural intervention with a
family and its community. Journal of Strategic and Systematic Therapies
9:4963.
Arora, Tiny, Sonia Sharp, and David Thompson. 2002. Bullying: Effective
strategies for long-term improvement. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Arseneault, Louise, Elizabeth Walsh, Kali Trzesniewski, Rhiannon Newcombe,
Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2006. Bullying victimization
uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: A nationally
representative cohort study. Pediatrics 118:130138.
Ary, Dennis V. and Terry E. Duncan. 1999. Development of adolescent problem
behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27:141.
150
Atlas, Rona S. and Debra J. Pepler. 1998. Observations of bullying in the

classroom. Journal of Educational Research 92:86.
Bacchini, Dario, Giovanna Esposito, and Gaetana Affuso. 2009. Social experience
and school bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology
19:1732.
Bachman, Ronet, Antonia Randolph, and Bethany L. Brown. 2011. Predicting
perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for African
American and White students: The effects of school security measures. Youth
& Society 43:705726.
Bailey, Adam D. 2014. Anti-discrimination law, religious organizations, and
justice. New Blackfriars 95:727738.
Baker, Joseph R., John K. Yardley, and Kerri McCaul. 2001. Characteristics of
responding-, nonresponding- and refusing-parents in an adolescent lifestyle
choice study. Evaluation Review 25:605.
Baldry, Anna and David Farrington. 2000. Bullies and delinquents: Personal
characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology 10:1331.
Bandura, Albert. 1994. Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, vol.
4, edited by V.S. Ramachaudran. New York: Academic Press, pp. 7181.
Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Banerjee, Robin and Helga Dittmar. 2008. Individual Differences in Childrens
Materialism: The Role of Peer Relations. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 34:1731.
Bauer, Nerissa, Paula Lozano, and Frederick Rivara. 2007. The effectiveness of
the Olweus bullying prevention program in public middle schools: A controlled
trial. Journal of Adolescent Health 40:266274.
Bender, Doris and Friedrich Lsel. 2011. Bullying at school as a predictor of
delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal
Behaviour & Mental Health 21:99106.
Bhana, Deevia. 2014. Ruled by hetero-norms? Raising some moral questions for
teachers in South Africa. Journal of Moral Education 43:362376.
Birkett, Michelle, Dorothy L. Espelage, and Brian Koenig. 2009. LGB and
questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic
bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth &
Adolescence 38:9891000.
Biruk, Crystal. 2014. Aid for gays: the moral and the material in African
homophobia in post-2009 Malawi. Journal of Modern African Studies 52:
447473.
Bjrkqvist, Kaj, Kerstin Ekman, and Kirsti Lagerspetz. 1982. Bullies and victims:
Their ego picture, ideal ego picture, and normative ego picture. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 23:307313.
Bjrkqvist, Kaj, Karin Osterman, and Ari Kaukialnen. 2000. Social Intelligence
empathy=aggression? Aggression and Violent Behavior 5:191200.
References
151
Blain-Arcaro, Christine, J. David Smith, Charles E. Cunningham, Tracy

Vaillancourt, and Heather Rimas. 2012. Contextual attributes of indirect
bullying situations that influence teachers decisions to intervene. Journal of
School Violence 11:226245.
Blosnich, John and Robert Bossarte. 2011. Low-level violence in schools: Is
there an association between school safety measures and peer victimization?
Journal of School Health 81:107113.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Botvin, Gilbert, Sharon Mahalic, and Jennifer Grotpeter. 1998. Life Skills Training:
Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and
Prevention of Violence.
Boulton, Michael J. 1997. Teachers views on bullying: Definitions, attitudes,
and ability to cope. British Journal of Educational Psychology 67:223233.
Boulton, Michael J. 1999. Concurrent and longitudinal relations between
childrens playground behavior and social. Child Development 70:944.
Boulton, Michael J. and Kerry Underwood. 1993. Bully/victim problem among
middle school children. European Education 25:18.
Boulton, Michael J., Elizabeth Duke, Gemma Holman, Eleanor Laxton, Beth
Nicholas, Ruth Spells, Emma Williams, and Helen Woodmansey. 2009.
Associations between being bullied, perceptions of safety in classroom and
playground, and relationship with teacher among primary school pupils.
Educational Studies (03055698) 35:255267.
Bowes, Lucy, Louise Arseneault, Barbara Maughan, Alan Taylor, Avshalom Caspi,
and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2009. School, neighborhood, and family factors are
associated with childrens bullying involvement: A nationally representative
longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry 48:545553.
Bowker, Julie C., Jamie M. Ostrov, and Radhi Raja. 2012. Relational and overt
aggression in urban India: Associations with peer relations and best friends
aggression. International Journal of Behavioral Development 36:107116.
Bowllan, Nancy M. 2011. Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive,
school-wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle
school. Journal of School Health 81:167173.
Bradshaw, Catherine P., Mary M. Mitchell, Lindsey M. OBrennan, and
Philip J. Leaf. 2010. Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the
overrepresentation of black students in office disciplinary referrals. Journal
of Educational Psychology 102:508520.
Brady, Kevin P., Sharon Balmer, and Deinya Phenix. 2007. School-police
partnership effectiveness in urban schools. Education & Urban Society 39:
455478.
Braithwaite, Valerie, Eliza Ahmed, Brenda Morrison, and Monika Reinhert. 2003.
Researching the prospects for restorative justice practice in schools: The Life
152
at School Survey, 19961999. In Repositioning Restorative Justice, edited

by L. Walgave. Cullompton, UK: Willan, pp. 169190.
Brinson, Sabrina A. 2005. Boys dont tell on sugar-and-spice-but-not-so-nice girl
bullies. Reclaiming Children & Youth 14:169174.
Brion-Meisels, Steven and Robert Selman. 1996. From fight or flight to
collaboration: A framework for understanding individual and institutional
development in the school. In Schools: Violence and Society, edited by
A. Hoffman. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 167184.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist 32:513531.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie and Pamela Morris. 2006. The bioecological model of
human development. In Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited
by M.D. Lerner and W. Damon. New York: Wiley, pp. 793828.
Bryn, Stephanie. 2011. Stop Bullying Now! A Federal campaign for bullying
prevention and intervention. Journal of School Violence 10:213219.
Buckels, Erin, Paul Trapnell, and Delroy Paulhus. 2014. Trolls just want to have
fun. Personality & Individual Differences 67:97102.
Bukowski, William M. and Ryan Adams. 2005. Peer relationships and psychopathology: Markers, moderators, mediators, mechanisms, and meanings.
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 34:310.
Bunk, Jennifer, Jodi Karabin, and Tracie Lear. 2011. Understanding why workers
engage in rude behaviors: A social interactionist perspective. Current Psychology 30:7480.
Burgess-Proctor, Amanda, Justin Patchin, and Sameer Hinduja. 2008. Cyberbullying and online harassment: Reconceptualizing the victimization of
adolescent girls. In Female Crime Victims: Reality Reconsidered, edited by
V. Garcia and J. Clifford. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, pp. 162176.
Burssens, Dieter and Nicole Vettenburg. 2006. Restorative group conferencing
at school: A Constructive response to serious incidents. Journal of School
Violence 5:517.
Butler, John L. and Rhi Anna Lynn Platt. 2008. Bullying: A family and school
system treatment model. American Journal of Family Therapy 36:1829.
Byrne, Brendan. 1994. Bullies and victims in a school setting with reference to
some Dublin schools. The Irish Journal of Psychology 15:574586.
Cairns, Robert, Man-Chi Leung, and Beverley D. Cairns. 1995. Social networks
over time and space in adolescence. In Pathways Through Adolescence, edited
by J. Crocket and A. Crouter. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 3536.
Caravan. 2006. Cyber bully teen. Opinion Research Corporation.
Caravita, Simona C.S. and Antonius H.N. Cillessen. 2012. Agentic or communal?
Associations between interpersonal goals, popularity, and bullying in middle
childhood and early adolescence. Social Development 21:376395.
References
153
Caravita, Simona C.S., Paola Di Blasio, and Christina Salmivalli. 2009. Unique
and interactive effects of empathy and social status on involvement in
bullying. Social Development 18:140163.
Card, Noel A., Ernest V.E. Hodges, Todd D. Little, and Patricia H. Hawley.
2005. Gender effects in peer nominations for aggression and social status.
International Journal of Behavioral Development 29:146155.
Carlyle, Kellie E. and Kenneth J. Steinman. 2007. Demographic differences in
the prevalence, co-occurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullying at school.
Carr, Tom and John J. Schmidt. 1994. Whos afraid of the ?: A survey of eighth
graders concerns. School Counselor 42:66.
Carrera, Mara, Rene DePalma, and Mara Lameiras. 2011. Toward a more
comprehensive understanding of bullying in school settings. Educational
Psychology Review 23:479499.
Carroll-Lind, Janis, James Chapman, and Juliana Raskauskas. 2011. Childrens
perceptions of violence: The nature, extent and impact of their experiences.
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand:618.
Carroll-Lind, Janis, James Chapman, Janet Gregory, and Gabrielle Maxwell.
2006. The key to the gatekeepers: Passive consent and other ethical issues
surrounding the rights of children to speak on issues that concern them. Child
Abuse & Neglect, vol. 30, pp. 979989.
Casella, Ronnie. 2003. Zero tolerance policy in schools: rationale, consequences,
and alternatives. Teachers College Record 105:872892.
Charon, Joel. 2009. Symbolic Interactionism. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Chaux, Enrique, Andrs Molano, and Paola Podlesky. 2009. Socio-economic,
socio-political and socio-emotional variables explaining school bullying: A
country-wide multilevel analysis. Aggressive Behavior 35:520529.
Cheng, Ying-Yao, Li-Ming Chen, Hsiao-Chi Ho, and Chih-Ling Cheng.
2011. Definitions of school bullying in Taiwan: A comparison of multiple
perspectives. School Psychology International 32:227243.
Choi, Yoonsun and Benjamin Lahey. 2006. Testing the model minority stereotype: Youth behaviors across racial and ethnic groups. Social Service
Review 80:419452.
Coie, John and Kenneth Dodge. 1998. Aggression and antisocial behavior. In
Handbook of Child Psychology, vol. 3, edited by W. Damon and N. Eisenberg.
New York: Wiley, pp. 779862.
Cole, Mike. 1990. Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline? in CrossCultural Perspectives, 37, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by
J. Berman. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 279335.
Coleman, James. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology 94:94120.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.
Coloroso, Barbara. 2003. The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander. New York:
Harper Collins.
154
Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the person, and sexual politics.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Conners-Burrow, Nicola A., Danya L. Johnson, Leanne Whiteside-Mansell,
Lorraine McKelvey, and Regina A. Gargus. 2009. Adults matter: Protecting
children from the negative impacts of bullying. Psychology in the Schools
46:593604.
Connolly, Lisa C. 2012. Anti-gay bullying in schoolsare anti-bullying statutes
the solution? New York University Law Review 87:248283.
Conoley, Jane Close. 2008. Sticks and stones can break my bones and words can
really hurt me. School Psychology Review 37:217220.
Cooley, Charles. 1922. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons.
Correia, Isabel and Jorge Vala. 2003. When will a victim be secondarily
victimized? The effect of observers belief in a just world, victims innocence
and persistence of suffering. Social Justice Research 16:379400.
Cowie, Helen. 1998. Perspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of
peer support against bullying. Educational Research & Evaluation 4:108.
Cowie, Helen and Nicky Hutson. 2005. Peer support: A strategy to help bystanders
challenge school bullying. Pastoral Care in Education 23:4044.
Cowie, Helen, Nicky Hutson, Ozhan Oztug, and Carrie Myers. 2008. The impact
of peer support schemes on pupils perceptions of bullying, aggression and
safety at school. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties 13:6371.
Craig, Wendy and Debra Pepler. 1996. Bullying and victimization at school:
What can we do about it? In Safe by Design: Planning for peaceful school
communities, edited by S. Miller, J. Brodine, and T. Miller. Seattle, WA:
Committee for Children.
Craig, Wendy, Kathryn Henderson, and Jennifer Murphy. 2000. Prospective
teachers attitudes toward bullying and victimization. Social Psychology
International 21:521.
Craig, Wendy, Debra Pepler, and Rona Atlas. 2000. Observations of bullying in
the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International 21:22.
Craig, Wendy, Debra Pepler, and Julie Blais. 2007. Responding to bullying: What
works? School Psychology International 28:465477.
Craig, Wendy, Joanna Sue, Ashley Murphy, and Jennifer Bauer. 2010. Understanding and addressing obesity and victimization in youth. Obesity and
Weight Management 6:1216.
Crick, Nicki and Jennifer K. Grotpeter. 1995. Relational aggression, gender, and
social-psychological adjustment. Child Development 66:710722.
Crick, Nicki and David A. Nelson. 2002. Relational and physical victimization
within friendships: Nobody told me thered be friends like these. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology 30:599.
Crick, Nicki R. and Amanda J. Rose. 2001. Toward a gender-balanced approach
to the study of socialemotional development: A look at relational aggression.
References
155
In Toward a Feminist Developmental Psychology, edited by P. Miller and

E. Scholnick. New York: Routledge, pp. 153168.
Crick, Nicki, Jennifer Grotpeter, and Maureen Bigbee. 2002. Relationally
and physically aggressive childrens intent attributions and feelings of
distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development 73:11341142.
Crittenden, Patricia. 2008. Raising Parents- Attachment, parenting and child
safety. Collumpton, UK: Willan Publishing.
Cross, Donna, Melanie Epstein, Lydia Hearn, Phillip Slee, Therese Shaw, and
Helen Monks. 2011. National safe schools framework: Policy and practice
to reduce bullying in Australian schools. International Journal of Behavioral
Development 35:398404.
Cunningham, Phillippe B. and Scott W. Henggeler. 2001. Implementation of an
empirically based drug and violence prevention and intervention program in
public school settings. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30:221232.
David-Ferdon, Corinne and Marci Hertz. 2007. Electronic media, violence,
and adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent
Health 41:S1-S5.
Davies, Bronwyn. 2011. Bullies as guardians of the moral order or an ethic of
truths? Children & Society 25:278286.
DeLara, Ellen. 2012. Why adolescents dont disclose incidents of bullying and
harassment. Journal of School Violence 11.
Demaray, Michelle Kilpatrick and Christine Kerres Malecki. 2003. Perceptions
of the frequency and importance of social support by students classified
as victims, bullies, and bully/victims in an urban middle school. School
Dempsey, Alison, Michael Sulkowski, Rebecca Nichols, and Eric Storch. 2009.
Differences between peer victimization in cyber and physical settings and
associated psychosocial adjustment in early adolescence. Psychology in the
Schools 46:962972.
Dennis, Alex and Peter J. Martin. 2005. Symbolic interactionism and the concept
of power. British Journal of Sociology 56:191213.
DeRosier, Melissa and Sara Marcus. 2005. Building friendships and combating
bullying: Effectiveness of S.S. GRIN at one-year follow-up. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 34:140150.
de Wet, Corene. 2007. Educators perceptions on bullying prevention strategies.
South African Journal of Education 27:191208.
Deynoot-Schaub, Mirjam Gevers and J. Marianne Riksen-Walraven. 2006.
Peer interaction in child care centres at 15 and 23 months: Stability and
links with childrens socio-emotional adjustment. Infant Behavior &
Dijkstra, Jan, Siegwart Lindenberg, and Ren Veenstra. 2008. Beyond the class
norm: Bullying behavior of popular adolescents and its relation to peer acceptance
and rejection. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 36:12891299.
156
Dinkes, Rachel, Emily Catalde, Wendy Lin-Kelly, and Thomas Synder. 2007.
Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007. Edited by U.D.o. Education.
Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
Doll, Beth, Samuel Song, and Erin Siemers. 2003. Classroom ecologies that
support or discourage bullying. In Bullying in American Schools, edited by
D. Espelage and S. Swearer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
pp. 161183.
Due, Pernille, John Lynch, Bjrn Holstein, and J. Modvig. 2003. Socioeconomic
health inequalities among a nationally representative sample of Danish
adolescents: The role of different types of social relations. Journal of
Epidemiology & Community Health 57:692.
Due, Pernille, Juan Merlo, Yossi Harel-Fisch, Mogens Trab Damsgaard, Bj
Holstein, E. rn, Jrn Hetland, Candace Currie, Saoirse Nic Gabhainn,
Margarida Gaspar De Matos, and John Lynch. 2009. Socioeconomic
inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, crosssectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. American Journal of Public
Health 99:907912.
Dukes, Richard L., Judith A. Stein, and Jazmin I. Zane. 2009. Effect of relational
bullying on attitudes, behavior and injury among adolescent bullies, victims
and bully-victims. Social Science Journal 46:671688.
Dukes, Richard L., Judith A. Stein, and Jazmin I. Zane. 2010. Gender differences
in the relative impact of physical and relational bullying on adolescent injury
and weapon carrying. Journal of School Psychology 48:511532.
Dumais, Susan A. 2002. Cultural capital, gender, and school success: The role of
habitus. Sociology of Education 75:4468.
Duncan, Neil and Larry Owens. 2011. Bullying, social power and heteronormativity:
Girls constructions of popularity. Children & Society 25:306316.
Duncan, Renae. 1999. Peer and sibling aggression: An investigation of intra- and
extra-familial bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 14:871.
Duncan, Renae. 2004. The impact of family relationships on school bullies
and victims. In Bullying in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and
S. Swearer. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 227244.
Duncan, Renae. 2011. Family relationships of bullies and victims. In Bullying
in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. New York:
Routledge, pp. 191204.
Dunn, Christine E. 2007. Participatory GIS a peoples GIS? Progress in Human
Geography 31:616637.
Dyson, Lily. 2012. Strategies for and successes with promoting social integration
in primary schools in Canada and China. International Journal of Disability,
Development & Education 59:157172.
Edmondson, Lynne and Laura Dreuth Zeman. 2011. Making school bully laws
matter. Reclaiming Children & Youth 20:3338.
References
157
Eisenberg, Marla E., Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, and Cheryl L. Perry. 2003. Peer
harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of
School Health 73:311316.
Ellickson, Phyllis and Jennifer Hawes. 1989. An assessment of active versus
passive methods for obtaining parental consent. Evaluation Review 13:4555.
Englander, Elizabeth. 2007. Is bullying a junior hate crime? Implications for
interventions. American Behavioral Scientist 51:205212.
Epstein, Cynthia Fuchs. 1988. Deceptive distinctions: Sex, gender, and the
social order. New Haven, CT; New York: Yale University Press; Russell
Sage Foundation.
Erath, Stephen A., Kelly S. Flanagan, Karen L. Bierman, and Kelly M. Tu. 2010.
Friendships moderate psychosocial maladjustment in socially anxious early
adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 31:1526.
Erdur-Baker, zgr. 2010. Cyberbullying and its correlation to traditional bullying,
gender and frequent and risky usage of internet-mediated communication
tools. New Media & Society 12:109125.
Espelage, Dorothy and Melissa Holt. 2001. Bullying and victimization during
early adolescence. In Bullying Behavior, edited by R. Geffner, M. Loring, and
C. Young. New York: Hawthorn Press, pp. 123142.
Espelage, Dorothy L. and Susan Swearer. 2003. Research on School Bullying
and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here?
School Psychology Review 32:365383.
Espelage, Dorothy and Susan Swearer. 2010. Bullying in American Schools (2nd
Ed). New York: Routledge.
Espelage, Dorothy L., Kris Bosworth, and Thomas R. Simon. 2000. Examining
the Social Context of Bullying Behaviors in Early Adolescence. Journal of
Counseling & Development 78:326.
Espelage, Dorothy, Harold Green, and Joshua Polanin. 2012. Willingness to
Intervene in Bullying Episodes Among Middle School Students: Individual
and Peer-Group Influences. Journal of Early Adolescence 32:776801.
Espelage, Dorothy, Melissa Holt, and Rachael Henkel. 2003. Examination of
Peer-Group Contextual Effects on Aggression During Early Adolescence.
Child Development 74:205220.
Espelage, Dorothy, Sarah Mebane, and Susan Swearer. 2004. Gender differences
in bullying: Moving beyond mean level differences. In Bullying in American
Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, pp. 1526.
Espelage, Dorothy L., Steven R. Aragon, Michelle Birkett, and Brian W. Koenig.
2008. Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation
among high school students: What influence do parents and schools have?
School Psychology Review 37:202216.
Europe, ILGA. 2010, Members, Retrieved February 11, 2013 (http://www.ilgaeurope.org/home/about_us/members).
158
Evans, Cathy and Donna Eder. 1993. No exit. Journal of Contemporary

Ethnography 22:139.
Evans, Gary W. 2004. The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist 59:7792.
Faris, Robert and Diane Felmlee. 2011. Status struggles: Network centrality
and gender segregation in same- and cross-gender aggression. American
Sociological Review 76:4873.
Farmer, Thomas, Jill Hamm, Man-Chi Leung, Kerrylin Lambert, and Maggie
Gravelle. 2011. Early adolescent peer ecologies in rural communities:
Bullying in schools that do and do not have a transition during the middle
grades. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 40:11061117.
Farmer, Thomas, Robert A. Petrin, Dylan L. Robertson, Mark W. Fraser, Cristin
M. Hal, Steven H. Day, and Kimberly Dadisman. 2010. Peer relations
of bullies, bully-victims, and victims: The two social worlds of bullying in
second-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal 110:364392.
Farrington, David. 1993. Understanding and preventing bullying. In Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17, edited by M. Tonry. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, pp. 381458.
Festl, Ruth and Thorsten Quandt. 2013. Social relations and cyberbullying:
The influence of individual and structural attributes on victimization and
perpetration via the Internet. Human Communication Research 39:101126.
Finkelhor, David, Richard Ormrod, and Heather Turner. 2007. Re-victimization
patterns in a national longitudinal sample of children and youth. Child Abuse
& Neglect 31:479502.
Finkelhor, David, Richard Ormrod, Harry Turner, and Sherry Hamby. 2005. The
victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child
Maltreatment 10:525.
Finley, Laura. 2003. Teachers perceptions of school violence issues. Journal of
Finn, Jeremy and Donald Rock. 1997. Academic success among students at risk
for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology 82:221234.
Finnegan, Regina A., Ernest V.E. Hodges, and David G. Perry. 1998. Victimization
by peers: Associations with childrens reports of motherchild interaction.
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 75:10761086.
Finnis, John. 2011. Equality and differences. American Journal of Jurisprudence 56:1729.
Fitzpatrick, Kevin M., Akilah Dulin, and Bettina Piko. 2010. Bullying and
depressive symptomatology among low-income, African-American youth.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence 39:634645.
Flaspohler, Paul D., Jennifer L. Elfstrom, Karin L. Vanderzee, Holli E. Sink, and
Zachary Birchmeier. 2009. Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher
support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in
the Schools 46:636649.
References
159
Flouri, Eirini. 2004. Exploring the relationship between mothers and fathers
parenting practices and childrens materialist values. Journal of Economic
Psychology 25.
Fox, Claire L. and Michael J. Boulton. 2003. Evaluating the effectiveness of a
social skills training (SST) programme for victims of bullying. Educational
Research 45:231247.
Frey, Karin S., Miriam K. Hirschstein, Leihua V. Edstrom, and Jennie L. Snell.
2009. Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression,
and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of
Educational Psychology 101:466481.
Friedrich, William N. and Sarah T. Trane. 2002. Sexual behavior in children
across multiple settings. Child Abuse & Neglect 26:243.
Furniss, Clare. 2000. Bullying in schools: its not a crimeis it? Education &
the Law 12:929.
Furukawa, Emi, June Tangney, and Fumiko Higashibara. 2012. Cross-cultural
continuities and discontinuities in shame, guilt, and pride: A study of children
residing in Japan, Korea and the USA. Self & Identity 11:90113.
Garandeau, Claire F. and Antonius H.N. Cillessen. 2006. From indirect
aggression to invisible aggression: A conceptual view on bullying and peer
group manipulation. Aggression & Violent Behavior 11:612625.
Garbarino, James and Ellen DeLara. 2002. And Words can Hurt Forever. New
York: Free Press.
Garey, Anita Ilta. 1995. Constructing motherhood on the night shift: Working
mothers as Stay-at-home moms. Qualitative Sociology 18:415437.
Garner, Pamela W. and Tiffany Stowe Hinton. 2010. Emotional display rules
and emotion self-regulation: Associations with bullying and victimization in
community-based after school programs. Journal of Community & Applied
Social Psychology 20:480496.
Georgiou, Stelios N. 2008. Bullying and victimization at school: The role of
mothers. British Journal of Educational Psychology 78:109125.
Gerouki, Margarita. 2010. The boy who was drawing princesses: Primary
teachers accounts of childrens non-conforming behaviours. Sex Education
10:335348.
Gibson, Matthew. 2013. The God dilution religion, discrimination and the case
for reasonable accommodation. Cambridge Law Journal 72:578616.
Gilbert, Linda. 1998. United Nations convention on the rights of the child.
Ministry of Youth Affairs, Office of the Commissioner for Children, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Gillborn, David. 1993. Racial violence and bullying. In Understanding and
Managing Bullying, edited by D. Tattum. Heinemann, London: Heinemann
Educational, pp. 161172.
Gillespie, Alisdair A. 2006. Cyber-bullying and harassment of teenagers: The
legal response. Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law 28:123136.
160
Gini, Gianluca. 2007. Who is blameworthy?: Social identity and inter-group

bullying. School Psychology International 28:7789.
Gini, Gianluca, Paolo Albiero, Beatrice Benelli, and Gianmarco Altoe. 2009.
Determinants of adolescents active defending and passive bystander behavior
in bullying. Journal of Adolescence 31:93105.
Gini, Gianluca, Tiziana Pozzoli, Francesco Borghi, and Lara Franzoni. 2008. The
role of bystanders in students perception of bullying and sense of safety.
Journal of School Psychology 46:617638.
GLSEN. 2013a, Safe zone kits, Retrieved March 10, 2013 (http://safespace.
glsen.org/).
GLSEN. 2013b, What we do, Retrieved March 10, 2013 (http://www.glsen.org/
cgi-bin/iowa/all/what/index.html).
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City,
NY: Doubleday.
Goldweber, Asha, Tracy Waasdorp, and Catherine Bradshaw. 2013. Examining
associations between race, urbanicity, and patterns of bullying involvement.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence 42:206219.
Goossens, F.A., T. Olthof, and P.H. Dekker. 2006. New participant role scales:
Comparison between various criteria for assigning roles and indications for
their validity. Aggressive Behavior 32:343357.
Gottfredson, Denise C. and Stephanie M. DiPietro. 2011. School size, social
capital, and student victimization. Sociology of Education 84:6989.
Gradinger, Petra, Dagmar Strohmeier, and Christiane Spiel. 2009. Traditional
bullying and cyberbullying: Identification of risk groups for adjustment
problems. Journal of Psychology 271:205213.
Graham, Sandra and Jaana Juvonen. 2002. Ethnicity, Peer Harassment, and
Adjustment in Middle School: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Early
Adolescence 22:173.
Graham, Sandra, Amy Bellmore, and Jaana Juvonen. 2003. Peer victimization in
middle school: When self- and peer views diverge. Journal of Applied School
Green, Lorraine. 1995. Cleaning up drug hot spots in Oakland, California: The
displacement and diffusion effects. Justice Quarterly 12:737754.
Greenberg, Mark, Carol Kusche, and Sharon Mihalic. 1998. Blueprints for
violence prevention: Promoting alternative thinking strategies. Institute
of Behavioral Science, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence,
Boulder, CO.
Greene, Michael. 2000. Bullying and harassment in schools. In Shocking
Violence, edited by R. Moser and C. Frantz. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas,
pp. 72101.
Griffiths, I.J., D. Wolke, A.S. Page, and J.P. Horwood. 2006. Obesity and
bullying: Different effects for boys and girls. Archives of Disease in
Childhood 91:121125.
References
161
Grotpeter, Jennifer K. and Nicki R. Crick. 1996. Relational aggression, overt

aggression, and friendship. Child Development 67:23282338.
Gruber, James and Susan Fineran. 2008. Comparing the impact of bullying
and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of
adolescents. Sex Roles 59:113.
GSA. 2009. Frequently asked questions about GSA network, retrieved February
11, 2013 (http://gsanetwork.org/about-us/faq).
Guerin, Suzane and Elis Hennessey. 2002. Aggression and Bullying. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Haas, Anne and Stanford Gregory. 2005. The impact of physical attractiveness
on womens social status and interactional power. Sociological Forum 20:
449471.
Hakamies, Annukka. 2007. The method has a meaning the form has a mind.
Tampere University, Tampere University Press.
Hallett, Tim. 2007. Between deference and distinction: interaction ritual through
symbolic power in an educational institution. Social Psychology Quarterly
70:148171.
Hallinan, Maureen T. 2008. Teacher influences on students attachment to
school. Sociology of Education 81:271283.
Hamarus, Paivi and Pauli Kaikkonen. 2008. School bullying as a creator of pupil
peer pressure. Educational Research 50:333345.
Hanewinkel, Reiner. 2004. Prevention of bullying in German schools: An
evaluation of an anti-bullying approach. In Bullying in Schools, edited by
P. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 8197.
Haney, Craig, Curtis Banks, and Phillip Zimbardo. 1973. A study of prisoners
and guards in a simulated prison. In Naval Research Review, vol. 30, edited
by D.o.t. Navy. Washington, DC: Office of Naval Research, pp. 417.
Hanish, Laura and Nancy Guerra. 2000. The roles of ethnicity and school
context in predicting childrens victimization by peers. American Journal of
Community Psychology 28:201.
Hanish, Laura, Becky Kochenderfer-Ladd, Richard Fabes, Carol Martin, and
Donna Denning. 2003. Bullying among young children. In Bullying in
American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 141159.
Harachi, Tracy, Richard Catalano, and J. David Hawkins. 1999. The United
States. In The Nature Of School Bullying: A Crosscultural Perspective, edited
by R. Catalano, J. Junger-Tas, Y. Morita, D. Olweus, P. Slee, and P. Smith.
London: Routledge, pp. 279295.
Harel-Fisch, Yossi, Sophie D. Walsh, Haya Fogel-Grinvald, Gabriel Amitai,
William Pickett, Michal Molcho, Pernille Due, Margarida Gaspar de Matos,
and Wendy Craig. 2011. Negative school perceptions and involvement in
school bullying: A universal relationship across 40 countries. Journal of
162
Harris, Ian M. 1995. Messages Men Hear: Constructing Masculinities. Bristol,

PA: Taylor & Francis,.
Harris, Trevor and Daniel Weiner. 1998. Empowerment, marginalization, and
community-integrated GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information
Systems 25:6776.
Hawker, David S.J. and Michael J. Boulton. 2000. Twenty years research on
peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of
cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied
Disciplines 41:441.
Hawkins, J. David, David Farrington, and Richard Catalano. 1998. Reducing
violence through schools. In Violence in American Schools, edited by
D. Elliott, B. Hamburg, and K. Williams. New York: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 188216.
Hawkins, J. David, Jie Guo, Karl G. Hill, Sara Battin-Pearson, and Robert D. Abbott.
2001. Long-term effects of the Seattle Social Development Intervention on
school bonding trajectories. Applied Developmental Science 5:225236.
Hayden, Anders. 2006. Europes work time alternatives. In Solutions to Social
Problems, edited by S. Eitzen. New York: Pearson, pp. 142157.
Hazemba, Alice, Seter Siziya, Adamson S. Muula, and Emmanuel Rudatsikira.
2008. Prevalence and correlates of being bullied among in-school adolescents
in Beijing: Results from the 2003 Beijing Global School-Based Health Survey.
Annals of General Psychiatry 7:16.
Hazler, Richard J. and Jolynn V. Carney. 2002. Empowering peers to
prevent youth violence. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education &
Hazler, Richard J., Dina L. Miller, Jolynn V. Carney, and Suzy Green. 2001. Adult
recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research 43:133146.
Hazler, Richard, Jolynn V. Carney, Suzy Green, Richard Powell, and Loren Scott
Jolly. 1997. Areas of expert agreement on identification of school bullies and
victims. School Psychology International 18:514.
Heinemann, Peter-Paul. 1973. Mobbing. Oslo, Norway: Gyldendal.
Hektner, Joel M. and Christopher A. Swenson. 2012. Links from teacher beliefs to
peer victimization and bystander intervention: Tests of mediating processes.
Journal of Early Adolescence 32:516536.
Henault, Cherry. 2001. Zero-tolerance in schools. Journal of Law and
Education 30:547553.
Herdt, Gilbert. 1997. Same Sex, Different Cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler, and Sasha Barab. 2002.
Searching for safety online: Managing Trolling in a feminist forum.
Information Society 18:371384.
Hershberger, Scott L. and Anthony R. DAugelli. 1995. The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual
youths. Developmental Psychology 31:65.
References
163
Hershberger, Scott L., Neil Pilkington, and Anthony R. DAugelli. 1997.

Predictors of suicidality in lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Journal of
Adolescent Research 12:477497.
Hewitt, John and David Shulman. 2010. Self and Society. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Hidaka, Yasuharu, Don Operario, Mie Takenaka, Sachiko Omori, Seiichi
Ichikawa, and Takuma Shirasaka. 2008. Attempted suicide and associated
risk factors among youth in urban Japan. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric
Epidemiology 43:752757.
Hilton, Jeanne M., Linda Anngela-Cole, and Juri Wakita. 2010. A cross-cultural
comparison of factors associated with school bullying in Japan and the United
States. Family Journal 18:413422.
Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. 2007. Offline consequences of online
victimization: School violence and delinquency. Journal of School Violence
6:89112.
Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. 2009. Bullying Beyond the Schoolyard:
Preventing and Responding to Cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. 2010. Bullying, cyberbullying, and
suicide. Archives of Suicide Research 14:206221.
Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. 2011. Cyberbullying: A review of the
legal issues facing educators. Preventing School Failure 55:7178.
Hodges, Ernest and Michel Boivin. 1999. The power of friendship: Protection
against an escalating cycle of peer victimization. Developmental Psychology
35:94.
Hodges, Ernest and Maurice J. Malone. 1997. Individual risk and social risk as
interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group. Developmental
Psychology 33:1032.
Hodges, Ernest and David Perry. 1999. Personal and interpersonal antecedents
and consequences of victimization by peers. Journal of Personality & Social
Hodges, Ernest, Michel Boivin, Frank Vitaro, and William Bukowski. 1999.
The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer
victimization. Developmental Psychology 35:94.
Hoffman, Stephen. 2014. Zero benefit: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance
discipline polices on racial disparities in school discipline. Educational
Policy 28:6995.
Hofstede, Geert. 1980. Cultures Consequences: International Differences in
Work-related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, Geert. 1991. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London:
McGraw-Hill.
Hoglund, Wendy L.G. 2007. School functioning in early adolescence:
Gender-linked responses to peer victimization. Journal of Educational
164
Holloway, John H. 2001. The dilemma of zero tolerance. Educational Leadership 59:84.
Holt, Melissa K. and Melissa Keyes. 2003. Teachers attitudes toward bullying.
In Bullying in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 121140.
Holt, Melissa K., David Finkelhor, and Glenda Kaufman Kantor. 2007a. Hidden
forms of victimization in elementary students involved in bullying. School
Holt, Melissa K., David Finkelhor, and Glenda Kaufman Kantor. 2007b. Multiple
victimization experiences of urban elementary school students: Associations
with psychosocial functioning and academic performance. Child Abuse &
Neglect 31:503515.
Holt, Melissa K., Glenda Kaufman Kantor, and David Finkelhor. 2009. Parent/
child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics
related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence 8:4263.
Holt, Melissa, Melissa Keyes, and Brian Koenig. 2011. Teachers attitudes
toward bullying. In Bullying in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and
S. Swearer. New York: Routledge, pp. 119131.
Hopkins, Belinda. 2004. Just Schools: A Whole School Approach to Restorative
Justice. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.
Hornby, Garry and Chrystal Witte. 2010. Parent involvement in rural
elementary schools in New Zealand: A survey. Journal of Child & Family
Studies 19:771777.
Horne, Arthur M., Christi Bartolomucci, and Dawn Newman-Carlson. 2003. Bully
Busters. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Horne, Arthur M., Christopher Bell, Katherine Raczynski, and Jennifer Whitford.
2011. Bully Busters: A resource for schools and parents to prevent and
respond to bullying. In Bullying in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage
and S. Swearer. New York: Routledge, pp. 227240.
Horton, Paul. 2011. School bullying and social and moral orders. Children &
Society 25:268277.
Howard, Natasha M., Arthur M. Horne, and David Jolliff. 2001. Self-efficacy
in a new training model for the prevention of bullying in schools. Journal of
Emotional Abuse 2:181191.
Hui, Wang, Zhou Xiaolan, Lu Ciyong, Wu Jie, Deng Xueqing, Hong Lingyao, Gao
Xue, and He Yuan. 2012. Adolescent bullying involvement and psychosocial
aspects of family and school life: A cross-sectional study from Guangdong
province in China. PLoS ONE 7:110.
Huitsing, Gijs and Ren Veenstra. 2012. Bullying in classrooms: Participant roles
from a social network perspective. Aggressive Behavior 38:494509.
Hunt, Ruth And Johan Jensen. 2007. The School Report: The experiences of young
gay people in Britains schools. London: Stonewall.
References
165
Hunter, Simon C. and James M.E. Boyle. 2004. Appraisal and coping
strategy use in victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational
Hyangsook, Jung. 2002. Shame as a mediator between parenting and psychological adjustment for Caucasian and Korean students: A structural equation
modeling approach. Dissertation Abstracts International 64.
Hymel, Shelley, Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Rina Bonanno, Tracy Vaillancourt,
and Natalie Henderson. 2010. Bullying and morality: Understanding
how good kids can behave badly. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An
international perspective, edited by S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, and D. Espelage.
New York: Routledge, pp. 101118.
Jacobsen, Gloria, Susan Riesch, Barbara Temkin, Karen Kedrowski, and Nina
Kluba. 2011. Students feeling unsafe in school: Fifth graders experiences.
Journal of School Nursing 27:149159.
James, Deborah, Ann Flynn, Maria Lawlor, Pat Courtney, Niamh Murphy, and
Bernie Henry. 2011. A friend in deed? Can adolescent girls be taught to
understand relational bullying? Child Abuse Review 20:439454.
Janssen, Ian, Wendy M. Craig, William F. Boyce, and William Pickett. 2004.
Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in
school-aged children. Pediatrics 113:11871194.
Jason, Leonard A., Steven Pokorny, and Richard Katz. 2001. Passive versus
active consent: A case study in school settings. Journal of Community
Psychology 29:5368.
Jeffrey, Linda, DeMond Miller, and Margaret Linn. 2001. Middle school bullying
as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of
others. In Bullying Behavior, edited by R. Geffner, M. Loring, and C. Young.
New York: The Hawthorne Maltreatment and Trauma Press, pp. 181192.
Jennings, Wesley G., David N. Khey, Jon Maskaly, and Christopher M. Donner.
2011. Evaluating the relationship between law enforcement and school
security measures and violent crime in schools. Journal of Police Crisis
Negotiations 11:109124.
Jiang, Depeng, Margaret Walsh, and Leena K. Augimeri. 2011. The linkage
between childhood bullying behaviour and future offending. Criminal
Behaviour & Mental Health 21:128135.
Jimerson, Shane, Susan Swearer, and Dorothy Espelage. 2010. Handbook of
Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective. New York: Routledge.
Johnson, Sarah Lindstrom. 2009. Improving the school environment to reduce
school violence. Journal of School Health 10:451465.
Johnson, Sarah Lindstrom, Jessica G. Burke, and Andrea C. Gielen. 2011.
Prioritizing the school environment in school violence prevention efforts.
Joiner, Richard, Jeff Gavin, Mark Brosnan, John Cromby, Helen Gregory, Jane
Guiller, Pam Maras, and Amy Moon. 2012. Gender, Internet experience,
166
Internet identification, and Internet anxiety: A ten-year followup. CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking 15:370372.
Jolliffe, Darrick and David P. Farrington. 2006. Examining the relationship
between low empathy and bullying. Aggressive Behavior 32:540550.
Joronen, Katja, Anne Konu, H. Sally Rankin, and Pivi stedt-Kurki. 2012.
An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and
anti-bullying at elementary school: A controlled study. Health Promotion
Juvonen, Jaana and Adriana Galvan. 2008. Peer influence in involuntary social
groups: Lessons from research on bullying. In Peer Influence Processes
among Youth, edited by M. Prinstein and K. Dodge. New York: Guilford Press,
pp. 225244.
Juvonen, Jaana, Adrienne Nishina, and Sandra Graham. 2001. Self-views and peer
perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In Peer Harassment in
School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized, edited by J. Juvonen and
S. Graham. New York: Guilford, pp. 105124.
Juvonen, Jaana, Adrienne Nishina, and Sandra Graham. 2006. Ethnic diversity
and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science
(Wiley-Blackwell) 17:393400.
Kanetsuna, Tomoyuki, Peter K. Smith, and Yohji Morita. 2006. Coping with
bullying at school: Childrens recommended strategies and attitudes to schoolbased interventions in England and Japan. Aggressive Behavior 32:570580.
Kasser, Tim. 2005. Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and
adolescents. In What do Children Need to Flourish?: Conceptualizing and
Measuring Indicators of Positive Development, edited by K. Moore and
L. Lippman. New York: Springer Science and Business Media, pp. 357374
Katzer, Catarina, Detlef Fetchenhauer, and Frank Belschak. 2009. Who are the
victims? A comparison of victimization in internet chatrooms and victimization
in school. Journal of Media Psychology 21:2536.
Kawanishi, Yuko. 2004. Japanese youth: the other half of the crisis? Asian
Affairs 35:2232.
Keddie, Amanda. 2009. Some of those girls can be real drama queens: issues of
gender, sexual harassment and schooling. Sex Education 9:116.
Keise, Celestine. 1992. Sugar and Spice? Bullying in Single Sex Schools. London:
Trentham Books Ltd.
Kimmel, Michael. 1996. Manhood in America. New York: The Free Press.
Klein, Jessie. 2006. Cultural capital and high school bullies. Men & Masculinities 9:5375.
Klein, Jessie. 2012. The Bully Society. New York: New York University Press.
Knous-Westfall, Heather, Miriam Ehrensaft, Kathleen Watson MacDonell, and
Patricia Cohen. 2012. Parental intimate partner violence, parenting practices,
and adolescent peer bullying: A prospective study. Journal of Child & Family
Studies 21:754766.
References
167
Kochenderfer, Becky J. and Gary W. Ladd. 1996. Peer victimization: Cause or

consequence of school maladjustment? Child Development 67:13051317.
Koo, Dixie J., Anthony A. Peguero, and Zahra Shekarkhar. 2012. The Model
Minority victim: immigration, gender, and Asian American vulnerabilities to
violence at school. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 10:129147.
Koo, Hyojin, Keumjoo Kwak, and Peter Smith. 2014. Victimization in Korean
schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or
Wang-Ta. Journal of School Violence 7.
Kosciw, Joseph and Elizabeth Diaz. 2005, The 2005 nation school climate survey
sheds light on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth
in our nations schools (www.glsen.org/binary-data/glsen_attachments/file/
5851.pdf).
Kosciw, Joseph, Emily Greytak, Mark Barkiewicz, Madelyn Boesen, and Neal
Palmer. 2011. The 2011 national school climate survey: The experiences of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nations schools. GLSEN,
New York.
Kowalski, Robin, Susan Limber, and Patricia Agatston. 2012a. Cyberbullying:
Bullying in the Digital Age. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kowalski, Robin, Chad A. Morgan, and Susan P. Limber. 2012b. Traditional
bullying as a potential warning sign of cyberbullying. School Psychology
Ku, Lisbeth, Helga Dittrnar, and Robin Banerjee. 2014. To have or to learn? The
effects of materialism on British and Chinese childrens learning. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology 106:803821.
Kumpulainen, Kirsti, Ella RSnen, and Irmeli Henttonen. 1999. Children
involved in bullying: Psychological disturbance and the persistence of the
involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect 23:12531262.
Kupersmidt, Janis, Pamela Griesler, Melissa DeRosier, Charlotte Patterson, and
Paul Davis. 1995. Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of
family and neighborhood factors. Child Development 66:360375.
Laeheem, K., M. Kuning, N. McNeil, and V.E. Besag. 2009. Bullying in
Pattani primary schools in southern Thailand. Child: Care, Health &
LaFontana, Kathryn M. and Antonius H.N. Cillessen. 2002. Childrens perceptions
of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod assessment. Developmental
Psychology 38:635.
Lahelma, Elina. 2004. Tolerance and understanding? Students and teachers
reflect on differences at school. Educational Research & Evaluation 10:319.
LaVeist, Thomas, Keisha Pollack, Roland Thorpe, Ruth Fesahazion, and
Darrell Gaskin. 2011. Place, not race: Disparities dissipate in Southwest
Baltimate when blacks and whites live under similar conditions. Health
Affairs 30:18801887.
Lease, A. Michele, Charlotte A. Kennedy, and Jennifer L. Axelrod. 2002.
Childrens social constructions of popularity. Social Development 11:87109.
168
Lee, Elizabeth A. Ewing and Wendy Troop-Gordon. 2011. Peer socialization of

masculinity and femininity: Differential effects of overt and relational forms of
peer victimization. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 29:197213.
Leff, Stephen, Janis Kupersmidt, Charlotte Patterson, and Thomas Power. 1999.
Factors influencing teacher identification of peer bullies and victims. School
Lenhardt, Amanda. 2012. Teens, smartphones & texting. Pew Research Centers
Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Li, Qing. 2006. Such engagement is a simplistic representation as social
factors relate to bullying beyond if a student is more or less likely to be
victimized because they have different characteristics. School Psychology
Li, Qing. 2007. New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behavior 23:17771791.
Limber, Susan and Mark A. Small. 2003. State laws and policies to address
bullying in schools. School Psychology Review 32:445455.
Limber, Susan, Maury Nation, Allison Tracy, Gary Melton, and Vicki Flerx. 2004.
Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in southeastern
United States. In Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions
Be?, edited by P. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
Lipkin, Arthur. 2002. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth risks for emotional,
physical, and social problems. In Getting Ready for Benjamin. Preparing
Teachers for Sexual Diversity in the Classroom, edited by R. Kissen. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Lovegrove, Peter J., Kimberly L. Henry, and Michael D. Slater. 2012. Examination
of the predictors of latent class typologies of bullying involvement among
middle school students. Journal of School Violence 11:7593.
Low, Sabina, Brian H Smith, Eric Brown, Kate Fernandez, Koren Hanson, and
Kevin P. Haggerty. 2011. Design and analysis of a randomized controlled
trail of steps to respect. In Bullying in North American Schools, edited by
D. Espelage and S. Swearer. New York: Routledge, pp. 278290.
Macklem, Gayle. 2003. Bullying and Teasing: Social Power in Childrens Groups.
New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher.
Madsen, Kirsten. 1996. Differing perceptions of bullying and their practical
implications. Education and Child Psychology 13:1422.
Mahady Wilton, Melissa M., Wendy M. Craig, and Debra J. Pepler. 2000.
Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying:
characteristic expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual
factors. Social Development 9:226245.
Mahan, Will C., Kris Varjas, Brian J. Dew, Joel Meyers, Anneliese A. Singh,
Megan L. Marshall, and Emily C. Graybill. 2006. School and community
service providers perspectives on gay, lesbian and questioning bullying.
Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling 1:4566.
References
169
Majors, Richard and Janet Mancini Billson. 1993. Cool Pose: The Dilemmas of
Black Manhood in America. New York: Simon & Schuster,.
Markus, Hazel and Shinobu Kitayama. 1991. Culture and the self: Implications
for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98:224253.
Martinez, Stephanie. 2009. A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance
policies really affecting schools? Preventing School Failure 53:153158.
May, Larry. 1992. Sharing Responsibility. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McEachern, Adriana, Maureen Kenny, Elizabeth Blake, and Oyaziwo Aluede.
2005. Bullying in schools: International variations. Journal of Social
Sciences 8:5158.
McGranahan, David A. 2004. The persistence of county high school dropout
rates in the rural South, 19702000. Review of Regional Studies 34:288302.
McLaughlin, Colleen, Ray Arnold, and Eve Boyd. 2005. Bystanders in schools:
What do they do and what do they think? Factors influencing the behaviour of
english students as bystanders. Pastoral Care in Education 23:1722.
McLoughlin, Caven, Robert Kubick, and Melissa Lewis. 2002. Best practices in
promoting safe schools. In Best Practices in School Psychology, vol. 4, edited
by A. Thomas and J. Grimes. Baltimore, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists, pp. 11811194.
McNeely, Clea and Christina Falci. 2004. School connectors and the transition
into and out of health-risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social
belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health 74:284292.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. Social
isolation in America: Changes in core discussion networks over two decades.
American Sociological Review 71:353375.
Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, self & society. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Medrich, Elliott. 1982. The Serious Business of Growing Up. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Meland, Eivind, Jan Henrik Rydning, Stian Lobben, Hans-Johan Breidablik,
and Tor-Johan Ekeland. 2010. Emotional, self-conceptual, and relational
characteristics of bullies and the bullied. Scandinavian Journal of Public
Health 38:359367.
Mellema, Gregory. 2006. Collective responsibility and contributing to an
outcome. Criminal Justice Ethics 25:1722.
Melton, Gary, Susan Limber, Vicki Flerx, Maury Nation, Wayne Osgood, Jeff
Chambers, Scott Henggeler, Phillippe B. Cunningham, and Dan Olweus. 1998.
Violence among rural youth. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, Clemson, S.C.
Menesini, Ersilia and Marina Camodeca. 2008. Shame and guilt as behaviour
regulators: Relationships with bullying, victimization and prosocial behaviour.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology 26:183196.
Menesini, Ersilia, Ada Fonzi, and Peter K. Smith. 2002. Attribution of meaning
to terms related to bullying: A comparison between teachers and pupils
170
perspectives in Italy. European Journal of Psychology of EducationEJPE

(Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada) 17:393.
Menesini, Ersilia, Virginia Sanchez, Ada Fonzi, Rosario Ortega, Angela Costabile,
and Giorgio Lo Feudo. 2003. Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national
comparison of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders. Aggressive
Behavior 29:515530.
Mercer, Sterett H. and Melissa E. DeRosier. 2008. Teacher preference, peer
rejection, and student aggression: A prospective study of transactional influence
and independent contributions to emotional adjustment and grades. Journal
of School Psychology 46:661685.
Merton, Bryan. 1996. Disappointed, disadvantaged, disappeared. Youth Studies
Australia 15:48.
Messner, Michael A. 1992. Power at Play. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Migliaccio, Todd A. 2001. Marginalizing the battered male. Journal of Mens
Studies 9:205226.
Migliaccio, Todd A. 2002. Abused husbands: A narrative analysis. Journal of
Family Issues 23:2652.
Migliaccio, Todd. 2008. Addressing deceptive distinctions: A comparison of
the occupational requirements of military personnel and elementary school
teachers. Free Inquiry in Creative Sociology 36:1526.
Migliaccio, Todd. 2015. Teacher understanding and perception of bullying:
Managing a teacher identity. Sociology Spectrum 35:84108.
Migliaccio, Todd and Juliana Raskauskas. 2013. Small scale bullying prevention
discussion video for classrooms: a preliminary evaluation. Children & Schools
35:7181.
Mikami, Amori Yee, Matthew D. Lerner, and Janetta Lun. 2010. Social context
influences on childrens rejection by their peers. Child Development
Perspectives 4:123130.
Miller, Shari, Jason Williams, Stacey Cutbush, Deborah Gibbs, Monique ClintonSherrod, and Sarah Jones. 2013. Dating violence, bullying, and sexual
harassment: Longitudinal profiles and transitions over time. Journal of Youth
& Adolescence 42.
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Milner, Murray. 2010. Is celebrity a new kind of status system? Society 47:
379387.
Mishna, Faye. 2003. Peer victimization: The case for social work intervention.
Families in Society 84:513522.
Mishna, Faye, Michael Saini, and Steven Solomon. 2009. Ongoing and online:
Children and youths perceptions of cyber bullying. Children & Youth Services
Review 31:12221228.
Mishna, Faye, Judith Wiener, and Debra Pepler. 2008. Some of my best
friendsexperiences of bullying within friendships. School Psychology
References
171
Mohapatra, Satya, Hyacinth Irving, Angela Paglia-Boak, Christine Wekerle,

Edward Adlaf, and Jrgen Rehm. 2010. History of family involvement with
child protective services as a risk factor for bullying in Ontario schools. Child
& Adolescent Mental Health 15:157163.
Moos, Rudolf H. 2003. Social contexts: Transcending their power and their
fragility. American Journal of Community Psychology 31:1.
Morita, Yohji. 1985. Sociological study on the structure of bullying group
[Ijime shuudan no louzo ni kansuru shakaigakuteki kenkyu]. Osaka, Japan:
Department of Sociology, Osaka City University.
Morita, Yohji, Haruo Soeda, Kumiko Soeda, and Taki Mitsuru. 1999. Japan.
In The Nature of School Bullying, edited by P. Smith, Y. Morita, J. JungerTas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P. Slee. London, England: Routledge,
pp. 309323.
Morrison, Brenda. 2007. Schools and restorative justice. In Handbook of
Restorative Justice, edited by G. Johnstone and D. Van Ness. Cullompton, UK:
Willan, pp. 325350.
Mortimore, Peter. 1995. The postive effects of schooling. In Psychosocial
Disturbances in Young People: Challenges for prevention, edited by M. Rutter.
New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 333363.
Mouttapa, Michele, Tom Valente, Peggy Gallaher, Louise Ann Rohrbach, and
Jennifer B. Unger. 2004. Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence 39:315335.
Muller, Amber. 2011. Virtual communities and translation into physical reality in
the It Gets Better project. Journal of Media Practice 12:269277.
Murray, Rebecca and Dennis Roncek. 2008. Measuring diffusion of assaults
around bars through radius and adjacency techniques. Criminal Justice
Review 33:199220.
Murray-Harvey, Rosalind and Phillip T. Slee. 2010. School and home
relationships and their impact on school bullying. School Psychology
Nabors, Laura, Myra Thomas, Lisa Vaughn, Ryan Adams, Joe Amaral, and Brian
Olsen. 2011. Childrens attitudes about an overweight or non-overweight
weight victim. Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities 23:8798.
Nansel, Tonja, Mary Overpeck, Ramani S. Pilla, W. June Ruan, Bruce SimonsMorton, and Peter Scheidt. 2001. Bullying behaviors among US youth:
Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 40:1145.
Narveson, Jan. 2002. Collective responsibility. Journal of Ethics 6:179198.
Naryshkin, Sergey. 2013. Without morality, there is and can be no true law.
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy &
International Relations 59(6):95104.
Naylor, Paul, Helen Cowie, Fabienne Cossin, Rita de Bettencourt, and Francesca
Lemme. 2006. Teachers and pupils definitions of bullying. British Journal
of Educational Psychology 76:553576.
172
Neal, Jennifer Watling. 2007. Why social networks matter: A structural approach
to the study of relational aggression in middle childhood and adolescence.
Child & Youth Care Forum 36:195211.
Neal, Jennifer Watling. 2009. Network ties and mean lies: A relational approach
to relational aggression. Journal of Community Psychology 37:737753.
Nesdale, Drew and Asao Naito. 2005. Individualismcollectivism and the
attitudes to school bullying of Japanese and Australian students. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology 36:120.
Newcomb, Andrew F. and Catherine L. Bagwell. 1995. Childrens friendship
relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 117:306.
Newcomb, Andrew F. and William M. Bukowski. 1993. Childrens peer relations:
A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial.
Psychological Bulletin 113:99.
Newman, Richard S., Arthur M. Horne, and Christi Bartolomucci. 2000. Bully
Busters. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Newman, Richard S., Brian Murray, and Catherine Lussier. 2001. Confrontation
with aggressive peers at school: Students reluctance to seek help from the
teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology 93:398.
Nickerson, Amanda B., Danielle Mele, and Kristina Osborne-Oliver. 2010.
Parentchild relationship and bullying. In Handbook of Bullying in
Schools: An International Perspective, edited by S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, and
D. Espelage. New York: Routledge, pp. 187210.
Niedl, Klaus. 1996. Mobbing and well being. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 5:239249.
Nishina, Adrienne, Jaana Juvonen, and Melissa R. Witkow. 2005. Sticks and stones
may break my bones, but names will make me feel sick: The psychosocial,
somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical
Child & Adolescent Psychology 34:3748.
Obermann, Marie-Louise. 2011. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peernominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior 37:133144.
OBrien, Catherine. 2007. Peer devaluation in British secondary schools:
young peoples comparisons of group-based and individual-based bullying.
Educational Research 49:297324.
OConnell, Paul, Debra Pepler, and Wendy Craig. 1999. Peer involvement in
bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence
22:437.
OMalley, Meagan. 2009. Prevailing interventions to address peer victimization
at school. California School Psychologist 14:4757.
OMoore, Mona and Chris Kirkham. 2001. Self-esteem and its relationship to
bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior 27:269283.
OMoore, Mona and B. Hillery. 1989. Bullying in Dublin schools. Irish Journal
of Psychology 10:426441.
References
173
Ojanen, Tiina, Matti Grnroos, and Christina Salmivalli. 2005. An interpersonal

circumplex model of childrens social goals: Links with peer-reported behavior
and sociometric status. Developmental Psychology 41:699710.
Olafsen, Runar Normark and Vappu Viemer. 2000. Bully/victim problems
and coping with stress in school among 10- to 12-year-old pupils in land,
Finland. Aggressive Behavior 26:5765.
Olthof, Tjeert, Frits A. Goossens, Marjolijn M. Vermande, Elisabeth A. Aleva,
and Matty van der Meulen. 2011. Bullying as strategic behavior: Relations
with desired and acquired dominance in the peer group. Journal of School
Olweus, Dan. 1977. Aggression and peer acceptance in adolescent boys: Two
short-term longitudinal studies of ratings. Child Development 48:13011313.
Olweus, Dan. 1978. Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and whipping boys.
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, Dan. 1993. Bullying at School. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olweus, Dan. 1994. Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a
school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
& Allied Disciplines 35:11711190.
Olweus, Dan. 2001. Olweus Core Program against Bullying and Antisocial
Behavior: A Teacher Handbook. Bergen, Norway: Author.
Olweus, Dan and Susan P. Limber. 2010. Bullying in school: Evaluation and
dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry 80:124134.
Orpinas, Pamela and Arthur M. Horne. 2006. Bullying Prevention: Creating a
Positive School Climate and Developing Social Competence. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Orpinas, Pamela, Arthur M. Horne, and Multisite Violence Prevention. 2004.
A teacher-focused approach to reduce and prevent students aggressive
behaviorThe GREAT teacher program. Journal of Preventative Medicine
26:2938.
Ortega, Rosario. 1992. Bully-victims problems in Spain. In European Conference
on Developmental Psychology. Seville, Spain.
Ortega, Rosario, Rosario Del Rey, and Joaquin Mora-Merchan. 2004. SAVE
model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In Bullying in Schools, edited
by P. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 167186.
Overbeek, Geertjan, Herma Zeevalkink, Ad Vermulst, and Ron Scholte. 2009. Peer
victimization, self esteem, and ego resilience types in adolescence: A prospective
analysis of person-context interactions. Social Development 19:270284.
Oyserman, Daphna, Heather M. Coon, and Markus Kemmelmeier. 2002. Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions
and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin 128:3.
174
Pack, Chris, Alexander White, Katherine Raczynski, and Aijun Wang. 2011.
Evaluation of the safe school ambassadors program: A student-led approach to
reducing mistreatment and bullying in schools. Clearing House 84:127133.
Packman, Jill, William J. Lepkowski, Christian C. Overton, and Marlowe Smaby.
2005. Were not gonna take it: A student driven anti-bullying approach.
Education 125:546556.
Parkhurst, Jennifer T. and Andrea Hopmeyer. 1998. Sociometric popularity and
peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer status. Journal of
Early Adolescence 18:125.
Pascoe, C.J. 2007. Dude, Youre a Fag. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Patterson, Charlotte J., Janis B. Kupersmidt, and Nancy A. Vaden. 1990. Income
level, gender, ethnicity, and household composition as predictors of childrens
school-based competence. Child Development 61:485.
Pearce, Michelle, Julie Boergers, and Mitchell Prinstein. 2002. Adolescent
obesity, overt and relational peer victimization, and romantic relationships.
Obesity Research 10:386393.
Pearce, Natasha, Donna Cross, Helen Monks, Stacey Waters, and Sarah Falconer.
2011. Current evidence of best practice in whole-school bullying intervention
and its potential to inform cyberbullying interventions. Australian Journal of
Guidance & Counselling 21:121.
Peebles-Wilkins, Wilma. 2006. Affirm diversity: mix it up. in Children &
Schools, vol. 28: National Association of Social Workers, pp. 33.
Pellegrini, Anthony. 2001. The roles of dominance and bullying in the development
of early heterosexual relationships. Journal of Emotional Abuse 2:6373.
Pellegrini, Anthony. 2002. Affiliative and aggressive dimensions of dominance
and possible functions during early adolescence. Aggression and Violent
Behavior 7:2131.
Pellegrini, Anthony and Maria Bartini. 2001. Dominance in early adolescent
boys: Affiliative and aggressive dimensions and possible functions. MerrillPalmer Quarterly 47:142163.
Pellegrini, Anthony and Jeffrey D. Long. 2002. A longitudinal study of bullying,
dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through
secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 20:259.
Pellegrini, Anthony, Jeffrey Long, David Solberg, Cary Roseth, Danielle Dupuis,
Catherine Bohn, and Meghan Hickey. 2010. Bullying and social status during
school transitions. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International
Perspective, edited by S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, and D. Espelage. New York:
Pepler, Debra, Wendy Craig, Jennifer Connolly, Amy Yuile, Loren McMaster, and
Depeng Jiang. 2006. A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive
Behavior 32.
Percy-Smith, Barry and Hugh Matthews. 2001. Tyrannical spaces: Young people,
bullying and urban neighbourhoods. Local Environment 6:4963.
References
175
Perkins, Brian. 2005. Where we learn. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards
Association.
Perkins, Brian. 2008. What we think: Parental perceptions of urban school
climate. Alexandria, VA: National School Boards Association.
Perren, Sonja and Rainer Hornung. 2005. Bullying and delinquency in
adolescence: Victims and perpetrators family and peer relations. Swiss
Journal of Psychology 64:5164.
Perren, Sonja, Julian Dooley, Thrse Shaw, and Donna Cross. 2010. Bullying
in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss
and Australian adolescents. Child & Adolescent Psychiatry & Mental Health
4:2837.
Perry, David, Ernest Hodges, and Susan Egan. 2001. Determinants of chronic
victimization by peers: A review of a new model of family influence. In Peer
Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized, edited by
J. Juvonen and S. Graham. New York: Guilford, pp. 73104.
Peskin, Melissa Fleschler, Susan R. Tortolero, and Christine M. Markham.
2006. Bullying and victimization among black and hispanic adolescents.
Phillips, Debby A. 2007. Punking and bullying: Strategies in middle school, high
school, and beyond. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 22:158178.
Pikas, Anatol. 2002. New developments of the shared concern method. School
Psychology International 23:307.
Ploderl, Martin, Gregor Faistauer, and Reinhold Fartacek. 2010. The contribution
of school to the feeling of acceptance and the risk of suicide attempts among
Austrian gay and bisexual males. Journal of Homosexuality 57:819841.
Polanin, Joshua R., Dorothy L. Espelage, and Therese D. Pigott. 2012. A metaanalysis of school-based bullying prevention programs effects on bystander
intervention behavior. School Psychology Review 41:4765.
Pollastri, Alisha R., Esteban V. Cardemil, and Ellen H. ODonnell. 2010. Selfesteem in pure bullies and bully/victims: a longitudinal analysis. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence 25:14891502.
Pornari, Chrisa D. and Jane Wood. 2010. Peer and cyber aggression in secondary
school students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and
outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior 36:8194.
Poteat, V. Paul, Ethan H. Mereish, Craig D. DiGiovanni, and Brian W. Koenig.
2011. The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents
psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting
identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psychology 58:597609.
Pottinger, Audrey M. and Angela Gordon Stair. 2009. Bullying of students by
teachers and peers and its effect on the psychological well-being of students in
jamaican schools. Journal of School Violence 8:312327.
Poyhonen, Virpi and Christina Salmivalli. 2008. New directions in research
and addressing bullying: Focus on defending behavior. In An International
176
Perspective on Understanding and Addressing Bullying Publication Series,

edited by D. Pepler and W. Craig. Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, pp. 643.
Pozzoli, Tiziana and Gianluca Gini. 2010. Active defending and passive
bystanding behavior in bullying: The role of personal characteristics and
perceived peer pressure. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 38:815827.
Puhl, Rebecca and Janet Latner. 2007. Stigma, obesity, and the health of the
nations children. Psychological Bulletin 133:557580.
Purugganan, Oscar H., Ruth E.K. Stein, Ellen Johnson Silver, and Blanche
S. Benenson. 2000. Exposure to violence among urban school-aged children:
Is it only on television? Pediatrics 106:949.
Qin, Desiree Baolian, Niobe Way, and Meenal Rana. 2008. The model minority
and their discontent: Examining peer discrimination and harassment of
Chinese American immigrant youth. New Directions for Child & Adolescent
Rahman, Momin. 2014. Queer rights and the triangulation of western
exceptionalism. Journal of Human Rights 13:274289.
Raskauskas, Juliana. 2005. Bullying on the school bus: A video analysis. Journal
of School Violence 4:93107.
Raskauskas, Juliana. 2006. Evaluation of the Kia Kaha Anti-bullying Programme
for students in years 58. New Zealand Police, Wellington, New Zealand.
Raskauskas, Juliana. 2010. Text-bullying: Associations with traditional bullying
and depression among New Zealand adolescents. Journal of School
Violence 9:7497.
Raskauskas, Juliana. 2013. Bullying: Students hurting students. In Crisis
Counseling, Prevention and Intervention in the Schools, edited by J. Sandoval.
Raskauskas, Juliana and Ann Stoltz. 2007. Relations between traditional and
internet bullying among adolescent females. Developmental Psychology 43:
564575.
Raskauskas, Juliana L., Janet Gregory, Shane T. Harvey, Fathimath Rifshana,
and Ian M. Evans. 2010. Bullying among primary school children in New
Zealand: relationships with prosocial behaviour and classroom climate.
Educational Research 52:113.
Ratcliffe, Jerry H., Travis Taniguchi, Elizabeth R. Groff, and Jennifer D. Wood.
2011. The Philadelphia foot patrol experiment: A randomized controlled trial of
police patrol effectiveness in violent crime hotspots. Criminology 49:795831.
Reese, Shelly. 1997. The law and gay-bashing in schools. Educational Digest
629:4649.
Reygan, Finn and Ashley Lynette. 2014. Heteronormativity, homophobia and
culture arguments in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Sexualities 17:707723.
Richard, Jacques F., Barry H. Schneider, and Pascal Mallet. 2012. Revisiting
the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school.
School Psychology International 33:263284.
References
177
Richins, Marsha. 2004. The material values scale: Measurement properties and
development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research 31:209219.
Richters, John and Pedro Martinez. 1993. The NIMH community violence
project. Pediatrics 56:721.
Rigby, Kathy and Sheri Bauman. 2010. How school personnel tackle cases of
bullying: A critical examination. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An
International Perspective, edited by S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, and D. Espelage.
Rigby, Kathy and Colleen McLaughlin. 2005. Bullying, bystander behavior and
peer support in schools. Pastoral Care in Education 23.
Rigby, Kathy and Phillip Slee. 2008. Interventions to reduce bullying.
International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 20:165183.
Rigby, Kathy, Peter Smith, and Debra Pepler. 2004. Working to prevent school
bullying. In Bullying in Schools, edited by P. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 112.
Rigby, Ken. 2004. Addressing bullying in schools. School Psychology
Rigby, Ken. 2008. Children and Bullying. Boston, MA: Blackwell.
Rigby, Ken and Bruce Johnson. 2006. Expressed readiness of Australian
schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being
bullied. Educational Psychology 26:425440.
Rios-Ellis, Britt, Laura Bellamy, and Junichi Shoji. 2000. An Examination
of specific types of ijime within Japanese schools. School Psychology
Rivers, Ian. 2000. Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth.
Support for Learning 15:13.
Rivers, Ian, Nathalie Noret, V. Paul Poteat, and Nigel Ashurst. 2009. Observing
bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School
Psychology Quarterly 24:211223.
Robinson, George and Barbara Maines. 2007. Bullying: A Complete Guide to the
Support Group Method. London: Sage.
Robles-Pia, Rebecca A. and Magdalena A. Denham. 2012. School resource
officers for bullying interventions: A mixed-methods analysis. Journal of
Rodkin, Philip C. and Thomas W. Farmer. 2000. Heterogeneity of popular boys:
Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology 36:14.
Rodkin, Philip C., Thomas W. Farmer, Ruth Pearl, and Richard Van Acker. 2006.
Theyre cool: Social status and peer group supports for aggressive boys and
girls. Social Development 15:175204.
Ross, Dorothea. 1996. Childhood Bullying, Teasing, and Violence: What School
Personnel, Other Professionals, and Parents Can Do. Alexandria, VA:
American Counseling Association.
178
Ross, Dorothea. 2003. Bullying. In Handbook of Crisis Counseling, Intervention,

and Prevention in the Schools, edited by J. Sandoval. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, pp. 105136.
Rthing, se and Stine Helena Bang Svendsen. 2010. Homotolerance and
heterosexuality as Norwegian values. Journal of LGBT Youth 7:147166.
Rubin, Kenneth H. and Paul Hastings. 1998. Intrapersonal and maternal
correlates of aggression, conflict, and externalizing problems in toddlers.
Rueger, Sandra Yu, Christine Kerres Malecki, and Michelle Kilpatrick Demaray.
2011. Stability of peer victimization in early adolescence: Effects of timing
and duration. Journal of School Psychology 49:443464.
Russell, Stephen T., Hinda Seif, and Nhan L. Truong. 2001. School outcomes of
sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study.
Journal of Adolescence 24:111.
Russell, Stephen T., Caitlin Ryan, Russell B. Toomey, Rafael M. Diaz, and Jorge
Sanchez. 2011. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender adolescent school
victimization: Implications for young adult health and adjustment. Journal of
School Health 81:223230.
Rutter, Michael. 1985. Resilience in the face of adversity. British Journal of
Psychiatry 147.
Salmivalli, Christina. 2001. Group view on victimization: empirical findings and
their implications. In Peer Harassment in School, edited by J. Juvonen and
S. Graham. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 398419.
Salmivalli, Christina. 2010. Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression
& Violent Behavior 15:112120.
Salmivalli, Christina and Jenny Isaacs. 2005. Prospective relations among
victimization, rejection, friendliness, and childrens self- and peer-perceptions.
Salmivalli, Christina and Ktlin Peets. 2009a. Bullies, victims, and bully-victim
relationships in middle school and early adolescence. In Handbook of Peer
Interaction, Relationships, and Groups, edited by K.H. Rubin, W. Bukowski,
and B. Laursen. New York: Guilford, pp. 322340.
Salmivalli, Christina and Ktlin Peets. 2009b. Pre-adolescents Peerrelational Schemas and Social Goals across Relational Contexts. Social
Salmivalli, Christina and Marinus Voeten. 2004. Connections between attitudes,
group norms, and behaviour in bullying situations. International Journal of
Behavioral Development 28:246258.
Salmivalli, Christina, Arja Huttunen, and Kirsti Lagerspetz. 1997. Peer networks
and bullying in schools. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 38:305312.
Salmivalli, Christina, Antti Karna, and Elisa Poskiparta. 2010. From peer
putdowns to peer support: A theoretical model and how it translated in a
national anti-bullying program. In Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An
References
179
International Perspective, edited by S. Jimerson, S. Swearer, and D. Espelage.

New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 441454.
Salmivalli, Christina, Ari Kaukianinen, Marinus Voeten, and M Sinisammal. 2004.
Targeting the group as a whole. In Bullying in Schools, edited by P.K. Smith,
D. Pepler, and K. Rigby. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sampson, Robert J., Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. Beyond
social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 1981. The socio-cultural context of rape: A cross-cultural
study. Journal of Social Issues 37:527.
Sanday, Peggy Reeves. 1996. Rape-prone versus rape-free campus cultures.
Violence Against Women 2:191.
Santinello, Massimo, Alessio Vieno, and Roberto De Vogli. 2011. Bullying in
Italian schools: The role of perceived teacher unfairness. European Journal
of Psychology of EducationEJPE (Springer Science & Business Media
B.V.) 26:235246.
Scheithauer, Herbert, Tobias Hayer, Franz Petermann, and Gert Jugert. 2006.
Physical, verbal, and relational forms of bullying among German students: Age
trends, gender differences, and correlates. Aggressive Behavior 32:261275.
Schmidt, Michelle and Catherine Bagwell. 2007. The protective role of
friendships in overtly and relationally victimized boys and girls. MerrillPalmer Quarterly 53:439460.
Schor, Juliet. 2004. Born to Buy: The Commercialized Child and the New
Consumer Culture. New York: Scribner.
Schwartz, David. 2000. Subtypes of victims and aggressors in childrens peer
groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 28:181192.
Schwartz, David and Steven McFadyen-Ketchum. 1999. Early behavior problems
as a predictor of later peer group victimization: Moderators and mediators in
the pathways of social risk. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 27:191.
Schwartz, David and Laura J. Proctor. 2000. Community violence exposure and
childrens social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of
emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting & Clinical
Psychology 68:670.
Schwartz, David, Andrea Hopmeyer Gorman, Jonathan Nakamoto, and Robin
L. Toblin. 2005. Victimization in the peer group and childrens academic
functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology 97:425435.
Seaton, Eleanor, Enrique Neblett, Daphne Cole, and Mitchell Prinstein. 2013.
Perceived discrimination and peer victimization among African American
and Latino youth. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 42:342350.
Sekol, Ivana and David P. Farrington. 2010. The overlap between bullying
and victimization in adolescent residential care: Are bully/victims a special
category? Children & Youth Services Review 32:17581769.
Seligman, Martin and Christopher Peterson. 1986. A learned helplessness
perspective on childhood depression: Theory and research. In Depression in
180
Young People: Developmental and Clinical Perspectives, edited by M. Rutter,

C. Izard, and P. Read. New York: Guilford, pp. 223249.
Sentse, Miranda, Ron Scholte, Christina Salmivalli, and Marinus Voeten. 2007.
Persongroup dissimilarity in involvement in bullying and its relation with
social status. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 35:10091019.
Shields, Ann and Dante Cicchetti. 2001. Parental maltreatment and emotion
dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle
childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30.
Shin, Yoolim. 2010. Psychosocial and friendship characteristics of bully/
victim subgroups in Korean primary school children. School Psychology
Siann, Gerda, Margaret Callaghan, Peter Glissov, Ruth Lockhart, and Lorraine
Rawson. 1994. Who gets bullied? The effect of school, gender, and ethnic
group. Educational Research 36:123134.
Simmons, Rachel. 2003. Odd Girl Out. New York: Mariner Books.
Smith, Emilie Phillips, Christian M. Connell, Gary Wright, Monteic Sizer, Jean
M. Norman, Alice Hurley, and Stephen N. Walker. 1997. An ecological model
of home, school, and community partnerships: Implications for research and
practice. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation 8:339.
Smith, J. David, Barry H. Schneider, Peter Smith, and Katerina Ananiadou. 2004.
The effectiveness of the whole-school anti-bullying programs: A synthesis of
evaluation research. School Psychology Review 33:547560.
Smith, Peter and Katerina Ananiadou. 2003. The nature of school bullying
and the effectiveness of school-based interventions. Journal of Applied
Psychoanalytic Studies 5:189209.
Smith, Peter K. and Paul Brain. 2000. Bullying in schools: Lessons from two
decades of research. Aggressive Behavior 26:19.
Smith, Peter, Helen Cowie, Ragnar Olafsson, and Andy Liefooghe. 2002.
Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender
differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child
Smith, Peter K., Debra Pepler, and Ken Rigby. 2004. Bullying in Schools:
How Successful Can Interventions Be? Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Smith, Peter, Sonia Sharp, Mike Eslea, and David Thompson. 2004. England: the
Sheffield Project. In Bullying in Schools: How Successful Can Interventions
Be?, edited by P. Smith, D. Pepler, and K. Rigby. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
Smith, Peter K., Jess Mahdavi, Manuel Carvalho, Sonja Fisher, Shanette Russell,
and Neil Tippett. 2008. Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary
school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 49:376385.
Smith, Peter, Lorenzo Talamelli, Helen Cowie, Paul Naylor, and Preeti Chauhan.
2004. Profiles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims and new
References
181
victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology 74:

565581.
Smith, Rhiannon L., Amanda J. Rose, and Rebecca A. Schwartz-Mette. 2010.
Relational and overt aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying
mean-level gender differences and associations with peer acceptance. Social
Smorti, Andrea, Ersilia Menesini, and Peter Smith. 2003. Parents definitions of
childrens bullying in a five-country comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Solberg, Mona E., Dan Olweus, and Inger M. Endresen. 2007. Bullies and
victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational
Spence, Janet T. 2003. Bullying and victimization among black and hispanic
adolescents. Bullying and victimization among black and hispanic
adolescents 8:8496.
Spriggs, Aubrey, Ronald Iannotti, Tonja Nansel, and Denise Haynie. 2007.
Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school
relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of
Adolescent Health 41:283293.
Stader, David L. 2004. Zero Tolerance as Public Policy. Clearing House 78:6266.
Stein, Nan. 2003. Bullying or sexual harassment? The missing discourse of rights
in an era of zero tolerance. Arizona Law Review 45:783799.
Stevens, Veerle, Ilse. de Bourdeaudhuij, and Paulette Van Oost. 2002. Relationship
of the family environment to childrens involvement in bully/victim problems
at school. Journal of Youth & Adolescence 31:419.
Stewart, Daniel M. and Eric J. Fritsch. 2011. School and law enforcement efforts
to combat cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure 55:7987.
Stipek, Deborah. 2012. Effects of student characteristics and perceived
administrative and parental support on teacher self-efficacy. Elementary
School Journal 112:590606.
Stockdale, Margaret S., Saidou Hangaduambo, David Duys, Karl Larson, and
Paul D. Sarvela. 2002. Rural elementary students, patients, and teachers
perceptions of bullying. American Journal of Health Behavior 26:266.
Storch, Eric A., Matthew K. Nock, Carrie Masia-Warner, and Mitchell E. Barlas.
2003. Peer victimization and social-psychological adjustment in Hispanic and
African-American children. Journal of Child & Family Studies 12:439.
Suckling, Amelia and Carla Temple. 2002. Bullying: A Whole-School Approach.
London: Jessica Kingsley.
Sugden, Karen, Louise Arseneault, HonaLee Harrington, Terrie E. Moffitt,
Benjamin Williams, and Avshalom Caspi. 2010. Serotonin transporter gene
moderates the development of emotional problems among children following
bullying victimization. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry 49:830840.
182
Sugimori, Shinkichi. 1998. Bullying in Japanese schools. In Cross-Cultural

Perspectives on Youth and Violence, edited by M. Watts. London, England:
JAI Press, pp. 175186.
Sullivan, Keith, Mark Cleary, and Ginny Sullivan. 2004. Bullying in Secondary
Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Swearer, Susan, Adam Collins, Kisha Radliff, and Cixin Wang. 2011. Internalizing
problems in students involved in bullying and victimization. In Bullying
in American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. New York:
Swearer, Susan M. and Beth Doll. 2001. Bullying in Schools: An ecological
framework. Journal of Emotional Abuse 2:723.
Swearer, Susan and Dorothy Espelage. 2003. Introduction. In Bullying in
American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 112.
Swearer, Susan, Dorothy Espelage, and Scott Napolitano. 2009. Bullying
Prevention and Intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Swearer, Susan, Susan Limber, and Rebecca Alley. 2009. Developing and
implementing an effective anti-bullying policy. In Bullying Prevention and
Intervention, edited by S. Swearer, D. Espelage, and S. Napolitano. New York:
Guilford Press, pp. 3952.
Swearer, Susan, James Peugh, Dorothy Espelage, Amanda Siebecker, Whitney
Kingsbury, and Katherine Bevins. 2006. A social-ecological model for
bullying prevention and intervention in early adolescents. In Handbook of
School Violence and School Safety, edited by M. Furlong and S. Jimerson.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 257273.
Sylvester, Ruth. 2010. Teacher as bully: Knowingly or unintentionally harming
students. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin 77:4245.
Takemura, Kazuhisa and Osamu Takagi. 1988. Psychological factors in the
ijime phenomenon: Negative attitude toward a deviator and conformity to
majority. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology 36:5762.
Tankersley, Dawn. 2001. Bombs or bilingual programs?: Duel-language
immersion, transformative education and community building in Macedonia.
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 4:107124.
Tattum, Delwyn and David Lane. 1989. Bullying in Schools. London: Trentham
Books.
Teske, Steven C. 2011. A study of zero tolerance policies in schools: A multiintegrated systems approach to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of
Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing 24:8897.
Testimony, HHS. 1995. Family Privacy Protection Act of 1995: Hearings before
the Committee on Governmental Affairs. In HR1271, edited by U.S. Senate.
Thacker, Scott and Mark Griffiths. 2012. An exploratory study of trolling in
online video gaming. International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology,
and Learning 2:1733.
References
183
Thijs, Jochem and Maykel Verkuyten. 2008. Peer victimization and academic
achievement in a multiethnic sample: The role of perceived academic selfefficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology 100:754764.
Thoits, Peggy A. 1983. Multiple identities and psychological well-being:
A reformulation and test of the social isolation hypothesis. American
Thoits, Peggy A. 1991. On merging identity theory and stress research. Social
Psychology Quarterly 54:101112.
Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical
and mental health. Journal of Health & Social Behavior 52:145161.
Thornberg, Robert. 2011. Shes weird! The social construction of bullying in
school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society 25:258267.
Thorne, Barrie. 1993. Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press,.
Thorpe, Karen, Rachel Bell-Booth, Sally Staton, and Catherine Thompson. 2013.
Bonding and bridging: Transition to school and social capital formation
among a community of indigenous Australian children. Journal of Community
Thunfors, Peter and Dewey Cornell. 2008. The popularity of middle school
bullies. Journal of School Violence 7:6582.
Timm, Victoria and Linda Eskell-Blokland. 2011. A construction of bullying
in a primary school in an underprivileged community: An ecological case
study. 41:339350.
Todres, Jonathan. 2011. At the crossroads: Childrens rights and the U.S.
Government. In Human Rights in the United States: Beyond Exceptionalism,
edited by S. Hertel and K. Libal. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 132152.
Tokunaga, Robert S. 2010. Following you home from school: A critical review
and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in
Human Behavior 26:277287.
Triandis, Harry C., Christopher McCusker, and C. Harry Hui. 1990. Multimethod
probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality & Social
Troop-Gordon, Wendy and Haeli Gerardy. 2012. Parents beliefs about peer
victimization and childrens socio-emotional development. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 33:4052.
Tsai, Alexander C., Michel Lucas Lucas, Ayesha Sania, Daniel Kim, and
Kawachi Ichiro. 2014. Social integration and suicide mortality among
men: 24-year cohort study of U.S. health professionals. Annals of Internal
Medicine 161:8594.
Ttofi, Maria, David Farrington, and Anna Baldry. 2008. Effectiveness of
programmes to reduce school bullying. Stockholm: Swedish Council for
Crime Prevention.
184
Turney, Kristin and Grace Kao. 2009. Barriers to school involvement: Are
immigrant parents disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research 102:257
270.
Twemlow, Stuart, Peter Fonagy, Frank C. Sacco, Martin Gies, Richard Evans,
and Russell Ewbank. 2001. Creating a peaceful school learning environment:
A controlled study of an elementary school intervention to reduce violence.
American Journal of Psychiatry 158:808810.
Twemlow, Stuart W., Bridget K. Biggs, Timothy D. Nelson, Eric M. Vernberg,
Peter Fonagy, and Stephen W. Twemlow. 2008. Effects of participation in a
martial arts-based antibullying program in elementary schools. Psychology in
the Schools 45:947959.
Underwood, Marion K. 2002. Sticks and stones and social exclusion: Aggression
among girls and boys. In Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social
Development, edited by P. Smith and C. Hart. Oxford, England: Blackwell,
pp. 533548.
Underwood, Marion K. 2004. Glares of contempt, eye rolls of digust and
turning away to exclude: Non-verbal forms of social aggression among girls.
Feminism & Psychology 14:371375.
Underwood, Marion K. and Lisa Rosen. 2011. Gender and bullying. In Bullying
in North American Schools, edited by D. Espelage and S. Swearer. Oxon:
Earlbaum, pp. 1324.
Unnever, James D. and Dewey G. Cornell. 2004. Middle school victims of
bullying: Who reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior 30:373388.
Vaillancourt, Tracy, Shelley Hymel, and Patricia McDougall. 2003. Bullying
is power: Implications for school-based intervention strategies. Journal of
Applied School Psychology 19:157176.
Vaillancourt, Tracy, Eric Duku, Denys Decatanzaro, Harriet Macmillan,
Cameron Muir, and Louis A. Schmidt. 2008. Variation in hypothalamic
pituitaryadrenal axis activity among bullied and non-bullied children.
Aggressive Behavior 34:294305.
Vandebosch, Heidi and Katrien Van Cleemput. 2009. Cyberbullying among
youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims. New Media & Society 11:13491371.
Van Ness, Daniel and Karen Strong. 2006. Restorative Justice. Cincinatti, OH:
Anderson.
Varjas, Kris, Christopher C. Henrich, and Joel Meyers. 2009. Urban middle
school students perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety.
Journal of School Violence 8:159176.
Veenstra, Ren, Siegwart Lindenberg, Anke Munniksma, and Jan Kornelis Dijkstra.
2010. The complex relation between bullying, victimization, acceptance, and
rejection: Giving special attention to status, affection, and sex differences.
Verkuyten, Maykel and Jochem Thijs. 2002. Racist victimization among children
in The Netherlands: The effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic & Racial
Studies 25:310331.
References
185
Vossekuil, Bryan, Robert Fein, Marisa Reddy, Randy Borum, and William
Modzeleski. 2002. The final report and findings of the safe school initiative:
Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. US
Department of Education, Washington, DC.
Vreeman, Rachel and Aaron Carroll. 2007. A systematic review of school-based
interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine 161:7888.
Walter, Heather J., Karen Gouze, and Karen G. Lim. 2006. Teachers beliefs about
mental health needs in inner city elementary schools. Journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 45:6168.
Wang, Jing, Ronald Iannotti, Jeremy Luk, and Tonja Nansel. 2009. School bullying
among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, social exclusion,
spread rumors, and cyber. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 35:11031112.
Watch, Human Rights. 2001. Hatred in the hallways. Human Rights Watch,
New York.
Wei, Hsi-Sheng and Melissa Jonson-Reid. 2011. Friends can hurt you: Examining
the coexistence of friendship and bullying among early adolescents. School
Psychology International 32:244262.
Wentzel, Kathryn R., Carolyn Mcnamara Barry, and Kathryn A. Caldwell.
2004. Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school
adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology 96:195203.
Wernick, Laura J., Alex Kulick, and Marita H. Inglehart. 2013. Factors predicting
student intervention when witnessing anti-LGBTQ harassment: The influence
of peers, teachers, and climate. Children & Youth Services Review 35:296301.
West, Bing. 2002. The Village. New York: Pocket Books.
West, Candace and Don Zimmerman. 1986. Doing gender. Gender and Society
1:125151.
Whitney, Irene and Peter Smith. 1993. A survey of the nature and extent of
bully/victim problems in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational
Research 35:325.
Whitney, Irene, Ian Rivers, Peter Smith, and Sonia Sharp. 1994. The Sheffield
Project: Methodology and findings. In School Bullying: Insights and
Perspectives, edited by P. Smith and S. Sharp. London: Routledge, pp. 84107.
Whitted, Kathryn S. and David R. Dupper. 2005. Best Practices for Preventing or
Reducing Bullying in Schools. Children & Schools 27:167175.
Wilcox, Pamela, Michelle Augustine, and Richard Clayton. 2006. Physical
environment and crime and misconduct in Kentucky schools. Journal of
Primary Prevention 27:293313.
Willard, Nancy. 2007. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats. Champaign, IL: Research
Press.
Williams, Kirk R. and Nancy G. Guerra. 2011. Perceptions of collective efficacy
and bullying perpetration in schools. Social Problems 58:126143.
186
Wilson, Dorian. 2004. The interface of school climate and school connectedness
and relationships with aggression and victimization. Journal of School
Health 74:293299.
Wiseman, Rosalind. 2009. Queen Bees and Wannabees. New York: Harmony.
Witvliet, Miranda, Tjeert Olthof, Jan Hoeksma, Goossens Frits, Marieke
Smits, and Hans Koot. 2009. Peer group affiliation of children: The role of
perceived popularity, likeability, and behavioral similarity in bullying. Social
Development, pp. 119. Online: DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00544.x
(Published May 2010, Social Development 19(2):285303.)
Wong, Dennis S.W., Christopher H.K. Cheng, Raymond M.H. Ngan, and Stephen
K. Ma. 2011. Program effectiveness of a restorative whole-school approach
for tackling school bullying in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender
Therapy & Comparative Criminology 55:846862.
Woods, Ruth. 2009. The use of aggression in primary school boys decisions
about inclusion in and exclusion from playground football games. British
Journal of Educational Psychology 79:223238.
Wright, Peter. 2006. Drama education and development of self. Social
Psychology of Education 9:4365.
Xie, Hongling, Robert B. Cairns, and Beverley D. Cairns. 2002. The development
of social aggression and physical aggression: A narrative analysis of
interpersonal conflicts. Aggressive Behavior 28:341355.
Xie, Hongling, Thomas W. Farmer, and Beverley D. Cairns. 2003. Different
forms of aggression among inner-city African-American children: Gender,
configurations, and school social networks. Journal of School Psychology
41:355.
Yamaguchi, Susumu. 2001. Culture and control orientations. In The Handbook
of Culture and Psychology, edited by D. Matsumoto. New York: Oxford,
pp. 223243.
Ybarra, Michele L. and Kimberly J. Mitchell. 2004. Youth engaging in online
harassment: Associations with caregiverchild relationships, Internet use, and
personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence 27:319336.
Ybarra, Michele, Dorothy Espelage, and Kimberly Mitchell. 2007. The
co-occurrence of internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation
victimization and perpetration. Journal of Adolescent Health 41:3141.
Ybarra, M, Kimberly Mitchell, Janis Wolak, and David Finkelhor. 2006.
Examining characteristics and associated distress related to Internet
harassment: Findings from second youth Internet safety survey. Pediatrics
118:e11691177.
Yi, Hongmei, Linxiu Zhang, Renfu Luo, Yaojiang Shi, Di Mo, Xinxin Chen, Carl
Brinton, and Scott Rozelle. 2012. Dropping out: Why are students leaving
junior high in Chinas poor rural areas? International Journal of Educational
References
187
Yoneyama, Shoko and Asao Naito. 2003. Problems with the Paradigm: the school
as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British
Journal of Sociology of Education 24:315.
Yoneyama, Shoko and Ken Rigby. 2006. Bully/victim students & classroom
climate. Youth Studies Australia 25:3441.
Yoon, Jina S. 2004. Predicting Teacher Interventions in Bullying Situations.
Education & Treatment of Children (ETC.) 27:3745.
Yoshikawa-Cogley, Linda. 1995. Children talk out problems. The Seattle PostIntelligencer, pp. B1, B3.
Yum, Young-ok and Kazuya Hara. 2005. Computer-mediated relationship
development: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, vol. 11.
Zeigler, Suzanne and Merle Rosenstein-Manner. 1991. Bullying in school.
Board of Education, Toronto.
Index
Page numbers in bold refer to a figure, table or box within the text.
absenteeism 20, 98, 101, 127, 134
abusive relationships 48, 133, 139
acceptance, of bullying behavior 1617,
23, 25, 357, 3940, 67, 69, 135
accountability 74, 75
action plans 129, 142, 146
administrators 72, 74, 76, 87, 117
adolescents 22, 52, 112, 136, 140
advocacy groups 63
Africa 99
African Americans 84, 104, 112, 113, 123
agentic orientation 37
aggression, acceptance of 357; see also
bullying culture
aggression, non-aggressive interactions 2,
145
aggression, overt 7, 37, 58, 96, 122, 137
aggression, passive 912
aggression, physical 2, 6, 7, 32, 39, 545,
92, 110
aggression, pro-active 21
aggression, relational 6, 7, 82
and collectivism/individualism 32, 37,
39, 40
and gender 91, 92, 96, 109, 122, 137
and group dynamics 28, 122, 1234,
125
and popularity 21, 24, 122
aggression, verbal 2, 6, 7, 32, 38, 39, 50,
55, 110, 137
Ahmed, Eliza 70
American Bar Association 84
Anderman, Carolyn 42
Anderson, James 99
anger management 66, 144
anonymity 512
anti-bullying actions 6588, 12530, 14046
anti-bullying, procedures 75, 147
and bystanders 43, 67, 70, 74, 1289,

14041
120, 124, 129
reporting bullying 66, 67, 69, 120,
128
and staff/teachers 87, 119
and community 27, 55, 57, 5962
and cultural change 62, 65, 68, 72, 76,
845, 87, 113, 133, 1468
and ethnicity 43, 84, 126, 127
and individualism 44, 45, 62
national 35, 40, 435
and Australia 35, 43, 59, 60, 68,
73, 118, 126
and England 35, 43, 59, 73, 85
and New Zealand 35, 43, 102, 144
and United Kingdom 41, 45, 59,
68, 99, 100, 102, 127, 129, 145
see also United States
and parents 58, 74, 126, 127, 146
and peer groups 41, 44, 72, 119, 126,
127, 129
and power 245, 27, 44, 116
and reporting bullying 68, 7071, 87,
1423, 147
and bystanders 66, 67, 69, 120, 128
and school culture 10, 27, 65, 68, 72,
76, 85, 126, 127
and teachers 245, 67, 69, 74, 87, 116,
118, 143
and victims 13, 40, 67, 1256, 135
anti-bullying policy 27, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75,
835, 147
anti-bullying programs 8n2, 11, 16, 27,
435, 68, 69, 102, 126, 145
Be Bold program 10, 60
Bully Busters program 44, 69, 143
190
It Gets Better Project 10, 27, 60

Mix It Up Day program 87, 12930
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program
8, 35, 59, 68, 110
SAFE Ambassadors program 87, 130
appearance, physical 10, 22, 94, 109, 1378
Asian Americans 106, 112
assertiveness 66, 67, 144, 145
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD) 110
Australia
and anti-bullying actions 35, 43, 59,
60, 68, 73, 118, 126
and bullying culture 32, 38, 40, 135
Austria 33, 50, 52, 100
autonomy 32, 43
awareness of bullying 34, 66, 689,
1413, 147
teachers 2, 92, 128
Back off Bully program 434
Baker, Joseph R. 42
Banerjee, Robin 109
Bangladesh 43, 70
bathrooms, school 36, 76, 78, 79
Be Bold program 10, 60
behavior management 87, 88
Belgium 33, 57, 68, 73
Bergen, Norway 68
Birkett, Michelle 101
black people 104
blame 49, 74, 138, 140, 143
Bowes, Lucy 53
Bowker, Julie C. 122
Bowllan, Nancy M. 59
boys 956
as bullies 91, 93, 122, 137
bullying girls 92, 112
and cyber bullying 50, 923
as victims 39, 91, 93
being bullied by girls 39, 92, 97,
112
Brinson, Sabrina A. 92
buddy systems 146
bullies 1517
boys as 91, 93, 122, 137
bullying girls 92, 112
bully/victim relationship 3, 1516,

30, 115
bully-victims 20, 57, 59, 92, 135,
13940
consequences to 20, 1334
and families 57, 59
girls as 91, 109, 122
bullying boys 39, 92, 93, 97, 112
role 117, 135, 1367
teachers as 3, 118
Bully Busters program 44, 69, 143
bully courts 7071, 75
bullying, definition and forms of 17, 26
bullying, perpetuation of see bullying
culture
bullying, physical see aggression, physical
bullying, racist see ethnicity; race
bullying, relational see aggression,
relational
bullying, verbal see aggression, verbal
bullying culture 1517, 4763, 65, 72
acceptance of 1617, 23, 25, 357,
3940, 67, 69, 135
awareness of bullying 2, 34, 66, 689,
92, 128, 1413, 147
and bullies see bullies
and bystanders see bystanders
and ethnicity 28, 9091, 1037, 108,
113
and families 29, 39, 48, 57, 589, 117,
137
national 10, 26, 32
and Australia 32, 38, 40, 135
and United Kingdom 31, 32, 35,
49, 50, 104, 106, 140
see also New Zealand; United
States
and peer groups 20, 234, 39, 73, 139
see also group dynamics; group
membership
persistence of bullying 2, 3, 14, 24,
70, 136
and power see power
and reporting bullying 34, 35, 41, 61
and teachers 2, 3, 92, 118, 119, 128
and victims see victims
Bullying Literature Project 142
Index
bullying rates 334, 35, 47, 57, 73, 108,
110
and New Zealand 34, 73
and United States 6, 7, 33, 34, 35, 73,
86
Bureau of Justice 60
Burgess-Proctor, Amanda 140
buses, school 36, 49, 86
bystanders 7, 13, 134
and anti-bullying actions/intervention
43, 67, 70, 74, 1289, 141
and efficacy 87, 144
120, 124, 129
reporting bullying 66, 67, 69, 120,
128
and staff/teachers 87, 119
and bullying culture 1617, 3940, 52,
967, 135, 14041
and bullying locations 789, 823
and fear 17, 20, 29, 40, 121, 140
28, 107, 115, 1212
and power 23, 24, 26, 28, 29,
1212
cafeteria, school 36, 79, 146
Cairns, Robert 119
California 102, 1456
Canada 35, 42, 60, 104
and community 47, 57
and groups 122, 126
and individualism 32, 33
and LGBTQ 99, 102
whole-school approach 73, 126
Carrera, Maria 18
Carroll-Lind, Janis 42
Casella, Ronnie 61
centrality 1234
Character Counts program 44
Chaux, Enrique 57
checklist, school environment 76, 77
Cheng, Ying-Yao 2, 3, 4, 25
children, young 22
China 22, 32, 56, 589, 126
class sizes 56
classrooms 36, 39, 78, 7980, 82, 85, 118
cleanliness 18, 85
191
cognitive training 1434

cohesion, social 32, 69, 70, 115
Cole, Mike 47
collectivism 32, 34, 3741, 43, 44, 45, 61,
62, 68
Collins, Patricia Hill 111
Colombia 32, 54, 56
Committee on Governmental Affairs, US
Senate 42
communication levels 57
communication styles 59
community 10, 267, 4763, 65, 69, 72,
112, 117, 1467
community groups 27, 60, 116, 127
conduct, codes of 77, 834, 85, 146
conflict, family 58
conflict resolution 5, 66, 128, 130, 145
connectedness, between groups 130
connectedness, school 18, 29, 67, 70, 76,
101, 115, 118, 1267
Conners-Burrow, Nicola A. 56, 57
consent, parental 412, 58
constructivism, social 36
context, social 1, 43, 53, 13348
and difference 89, 107, 109, 113
and ecological model 1314, 18, 259
Convention on the Rights of the Child
(CRC), United Nations 412
Cool Pose 113
Cooley, Charles 16
coping strategies 40, 66, 135, 144, 145
cost-benefit analysis 32
councillors, school 75
cowboy culture 35
Craig, Wendy 140
Crick, Nicki 39
crime 47, 103, 133
criminal justice system 13, 27, 6062
Cross-national School Behavior Project 43
Crown Prosecution Service 57
cultural change, and anti-bullying actions
62, 65, 68, 72, 76, 845, 87, 113,
133, 1468
culture, collectivist 22, 32, 33, 378,
4041, 43, 45
culture, individualistic 10, 26, 32, 33, 34,
37, 43, 45
culture, national 10, 3145
192
culture, school 22, 25, 48, 54, 56, 100

68, 72, 76, 85, 126, 127
curriculum 43, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75
cyber bullying 6, 7, 10, 29, 5053, 62,
1078, 134, 13940
and community 27, 59
and gender 50, 923
Czech Republic 33
dating violence 48, 49
defenders 124, 125
delinquency 47, 133
demography 89, 111, 123
Dempsey, Alison 7
Denmark 33, 108
density analysis 7983
depression
bully-victims 20, 135
victims 29, 52, 57, 97, 118, 134, 135
and anti-bullying actions 143, 144
and LGBTQ 101, 102
destiny, manifest 35
difference 10, 28, 89113
cultural 34, 43, 44, 87
disability 6, 9091, 11011, 126
discussion, classroom 85, 142
displays, of student work 85
displays, public 845
distinctions, deceptive 93
dominance 136; see also power
dominance, male 8990
drama club 128
drop outs 56, 118
Dublin, Ireland 35, 145
Duncan, Neil 94
Duncan, Renae 59
Ecological Model 31, 68, 133, 147
and community 47, 49, 54, 56, 65
and power 9, 1330
educational achievement 42, 53, 54, 101,
118, 126, 133, 134
efficacy, collective 68, 6971, 74, 75, 87
efficacy, self 116, 140, 144, 145
Ellickson, Phyllis 42
email 51
empathy 66, 119, 136, 14041, 145
England 33, 39, 41, 50, 118; see also

United Kingdom
73, 85
environment, social 10, 18, 48, 52, 56, 109
home 4, 39, 42, 49
physical 36, 65
school 18, 66, 67, 72, 74, 77, 7885,
146
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations, UK 100
Espelage, Dorothy 18, 68, 119
Estonia 33
ethnicity 8, 9
127
and bullying culture 28, 9091, 1037,
108, 113
see also race
Europe 60, 61, 73, 102, 129
exclusion, social 2, 4, 6, 26, 55, 11011,
127
and gender 91, 956
experience, social 1330
Facebook 5960
fairness 85
families 4, 32, 48, 569, 72, 96
and bullying culture 117, 137
parent-child relationships 29, 48,
567, 589, 94, 137, 139
see also parents
families, single parent 39, 56, 112
family education sessions 69
Faris, Robert 97, 123, 124
Farmer, Thomas 55
fathers 39, 58
fear 345, 61, 134
and bystanders 17, 20, 29, 40, 121,
129, 140
and group members 20, 24, 120, 121,
1234
femininity 946
Finkelhor, David 48
Finland 33, 35, 73, 96, 128, 134
focus groups 11618
Index
France 33, 73
freedom of speech 62, 100
Friendly Schools Program 68
friendship quality 97
friendships 289, 97, 98, 122, 1234,
1256, 137, 144, 146
Garandeau, Claire F. 136
Garner, Pamela W. 54
gender 10, 28, 39, 8990, 918, 113
and bullying rates 334, 104
and exclusion, social 91, 956
see also boys; girls
gender blindness 92
gender policing 94
gendered behavior 956, 101
Geographic Information System (GIS) 10,
78
Georgiou, Stelios N. 59
Germany 26, 47, 50, 61, 68, 73, 92, 96, 121
Get a Voice Project 60
Gini, Gianluca 13
girls
bullying boys 39, 92, 93, 97, 112
and popularity 22, 94
and relational aggression 91, 109, 122,
137
as victims 39, 91, 92, 93, 112
Glasgow 104
GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight
Education Network) 102
goal setting 37, 145
Goldweber, Asha 106
gossip 7, 50, 91, 94, 123
graffiti 85
Graham, Sandra 1056, 107, 134
Greece 33, 100, 144
Greenland 33, 33
griefing 52
Grotpeter, Jennifer K. 125
group control 26, 289
group dynamics 119, 1234, 125, 13031,
146
and bystanders
and anti-bullying actions/intervention
96, 101, 119, 120, 124, 129
193
and bullying culture 23, 24, 26, 28,

107, 115, 1212, 123
see also social dynamics
group membership 26, 968, 1012, 11922
and collectivism 32, 378, 4041
and fear 20, 24, 120, 121, 1234
in-group bullying 24, 122, 1234
and social interaction 117, 118, 119,
121, 128
see also peer groups; social groups
group power 5, 234, 27, 73, 1212
group responsibility 70
GSA (gay-straight alliance) clubs 99, 102,
127
Guangdong province, China 589
guards, armed 60, 61, 62
gun control 60, 61
Hallett, Tim 19, 23
hallways, school 36, 49, 76, 78, 79
Hamarus, Paivi 90, 121, 140
handbooks, student 84
Haney, Craig 61
hangers-on 124
harm, intent to 2, 34, 21, 50, 52
hate crime 103
hate-speech 100
health, mental 126, 127, 128, 134; see also
depression; suicide
health, physical 134
Health Behavior of School-age Children
(HBSC) study 33, 137
heterosexuality, perceived as homosexual
101, 102, 113
Hewitt, John 23
Hilton, Jeanne M. 25
Hispanic students 1056
Hofstede, Geert 3241, 45
home environments 4, 39, 42, 49
homophobia 54, 60, 99, 101, 102, 113
Hong Kong 76
Horton, Paul 90
hospitals 63
hot spots see locations for bullying
HPA (human platelet antigens) production
134
Hui, Wang 59
Huitsing, Gijs 124
194
human rights 412

humiliation 6, 38, 52
Hungary 33
identity 94, 956, 1056, 1267
Ijime 26, 38, 39, 40
income 43, 54, 55, 56, 93, 106, 1078, 112
independence 32
India 22, 32, 35, 122
individual response 1334
individualism 32, 34, 3741
and anti-bullying actions 44, 45, 62
and United States 32, 38, 60, 61
individuals 13, 17, 54, 67, 1334, 1416
Indonesia 32
in-group bullying 24, 122, 1234
insults 6, 7, 38, 50
integration, social 1267, 128, 133
interdependency 32, 40
inter-group interactions 968
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans
& Intersex Association 102
intervention/prevention programs see antibullying programs
intolerance 89, 111
involvement, student 85
Ireland 33, 35, 145
isolation, social 32, 101, 112, 115, 118,
126, 127, 133
Israel 33, 43
It Gets Better Project 10, 27, 60
Italy 31, 43, 73, 119
Jamaica 118
Japan 26, 32, 34, 35, 3741, 48, 59, 100
Johnson, Sarah Lindstrom 133
Jonesboro, Arkansas 39
journeys to/from school 36, 49
justice, restorative 44, 69, 74, 75
juvenile detention centers 63
Juvonen, Jaana, 2, 1056, 107
Kanetsuna, Tomoyuki 40, 41
Kia Kaha anti-bullying curriculum 8n2
Klein, Jessie 60, 61, 89, 945, 109
Koo, Dixie J. 32, 106, 112
Kowalski, Robin 13940
Kupersmidt, Janis 56, 57, 112
language 26
language impairment 110
Latinos 104
Latvia 33
law enforcement 27
leadership 25, 72, 138
Lease, A. Michele 22
Lee, Elizabeth A. Ewing 95
legislation 62, 99
LGBTQ community 10, 27, 60, 99102, 113
Life Skills Training (LTS) 145
likeability 21, 22
Lithuania 33
Littleton, Colorado 39
location, bridging 124
location, social 10, 49, 106
locations for bullying 77, 7883
cafeteria, school 36, 79, 146
classrooms 36, 39, 78, 7980, 82, 85,
118
and cleanliness 18, 85
hot spots 78, 823, 146
playgrounds/yards 36, 39, 49, 76, 78,
79, 82, 118, 146
unowned spaces 76, 78
London 104
Looking Glass Self 16
lunchroom, school 36, 74
Maori warriors 35
mapping 76, 7883
marginalization of bullies 20
marginalization of victims 19, 24, 48,
956, 115, 1234
martial arts 27, 145
masculinity 8990, 91
materialism 1089
Matrix of Domination 111
maturity 21
Mean Girls 92
mediation practices 5, 756, 146
Menesini, Ersilia 1
metal detectors 61
Method of Sharing Concern program 69
Mexico 35, 102
Miller, Shari 49
minority groups 42, 105; see also ethnicity;
LGBTQ community; race
Index
Mix It Up Day program 87, 12930
mixed grade classrooms 79, 80
mobbing 26, 37
Mohapatra, Satya 57
Monbusho study 38
mothers 39, 59
Murray-Harvey, Rosalind 118
Myspace 59
name calling 6, 50, 51, 110
Nansel, Tonja 39
national culture 10, 3145
Native Americans 104
Neal, Jennifer Watling 123
Nesdale, Drew 40
Netherlands 32, 102, 104, 124, 127, 136
New York 58
New Zealand 7, 89, 412
144
144
and student-teacher relationships
118, 119
and bystanders 120, 144
Nickerson, Amanda B. 139
non-aggressive interactions 2, 145
Norway 26, 33, 35, 68, 73, 100
obesity 1378
OBrien, Catherine 103
Olthof, Tjeert 136
Olweus, Dan 3
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program 8,
35, 59, 68, 110
orderliness 85
orientation programs 126
Ortega, Rosario 35
overprotectiveness 59
Oyserman, Daphna 38
Pack, Chris 128
Papua New Guinea 35
parenting style 39
parents 13
127, 146
195

589
fathers 39, 58
mothers 39, 59
parent-child relationships 29, 48,
567, 589, 94, 137, 139
and schools 58, 98, 146
see also families
parents, single 39, 56, 112
passivity 21, 66, 139, 140
path analysis 118
patriarchy 8990
Pearce, Natasha 68, 71
peer groups 18
119, 126, 127, 129
139
see also group membership; social
groups
peer mediation 5, 146
peer relationships 6, 29, 68, 7071, 144, 145
peer-modelling behavior 126
Percy-Smith, Barry 556
Perkins, Brian 54
Perren, Sonja 135, 139
persistence of bullying 2, 3, 14, 24, 70, 136
Peskin, Melissa Fleschler 104
phone call bullying 50, 51
photos 51
physical environment 36, 65
playgrounds/yards 36, 39, 49, 76, 78, 79,
82, 118, 146
Poland 33
policy, anti-bullying 27, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75,
835, 147
policy, LGBTQ 99, 100
policy makers 13
popularity 2022, 26, 378, 121, 139
and boys 22, 23, 122
and bullies 212, 123, 124, 137
and girls 22, 92
popularity, actual 21, 22
popularity, perceived 21, 22, 23, 37, 137
Portugal 33
position, social 1925
possessions, material 22
poverty 10, 49, 54, 55, 56, 589, 73, 112
196
power
and anti-bullying actions 245, 27,
44, 116
and bullying culture 2, 3, 4, 9, 1330,
90, 106, 112, 115, 1367
and bystanders 23, 24, 26, 28, 29,
1212
and families 57, 589
group power 5, 234, 73, 1212
power, formal/informal 19
Pozzoli, Tiziana 119
preferences, individual 32
prejudice 89, 97, 99
prepotenza 31
principals, of schools 87, 117
prisons 61
problem-solving 37, 66
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies
(PATHS) 145
property damage/destruction 6, 7
Protection from Harassment Act (US) 62
protocols 67, 97
Public Participation Geographic
Information Systems (PPGIS) 78
punishment 71, 74, 75
Purugganan, Oscar H. 54
Putnam, Tennessee 126
Queen Bees 92
race 54, 1037, 108, 112, 113, 126, 127, 138
rape 35, 90, 91
Raskauskas, Juliana L. 49, 73, 86
religion 43, 100
reparation, to the victim 75
reporting boxes 142, 143
reporting bullying 34, 35, 41, 61
and anti-bullying actions 68, 7071,
87, 1423, 147
and bystanders 66, 67, 69, 120, 128
resources in schools 55, 56, 72, 87, 117
responsibility
group 70, 146
social 43, 63, 68, 69, 7071, 734, 1434
Restorative Justice program 44, 69
Restorative Whole-School Approach
(RWSA) 748
Restraining Orders 62
Richters, John 54
Rigby, Kathy 43
Rigby, Ken 126
risk factors 74, 124, 137
roles in bullying 29, 13441; see also
bullies; bystanders; teachers;
victims
rumor spreading 4, 6, 7, 32, 50, 110, 123
rural areas 54, 55, 56, 57, 73
Russia 33, 99
SAFE Ambassadors program 87, 130
Safe Place Kits 102
safe rooms 78
safety issues 768, 120, 126, 129, 140,
142, 147
LGBTQ students 99, 101, 102
Salmivalli, Christina 20, 96, 121, 140
Samurai warriors 35
sanctions 84
Sanday, Peggy Reeves 8990, 91
Santee, California 39
Savage, Dan 60
Scandinavia 1, 73
School Crime Supplement of the National
Crime Victimization Survey 76
school culture 10, 22, 25, 27, 48, 54, 56,
6588, 100
68, 72, 76, 85, 126, 127
school environment 18, 66, 67, 72, 74, 77,
7885, 146
school environment checklist 76, 77
school resource officers (SROs) 62
school transition 73, 126
Scotland 33
secrets 50, 122
security, school 73
self-blame 49
self-confidence 21
self-esteem 6, 32, 135, 138, 143, 144, 145,
146
serotonin levels 134
Seville Project, Spain 68
sexual harassment 48, 49, 50, 60, 63, 113
sexuality 28, 9091, 99102, 113
sexually transmitted diseases 101
Index
shame 26, 35, 44, 48, 75
Sheffield, UK 35, 68
Shogun 35
shootings, school 1, 389, 60, 61, 95
Siann, Gerda 104
siblings 57, 58, 98
size, physical 137, 138
Slovak Republic 33, 34
Smith, Peter K. 35, 49, 50
social class 22, 56, 106, 1079, 112
and income 43, 54, 55, 56, 93, 106,
1078, 112
social context 11, 43, 53, 89, 107, 109,
115, 13348
and Ecological Model 13, 14, 18, 259
social dynamics 10, 6588, 115, 127; see
also group dynamics
social environment see environment, social
social exclusion see exclusion, social
social factors 10, 289, 89113, 117
social forces see bullying culture
social groups 1011, 11531; see also
group dynamics; group
membership; peer groups
social influence 1, 130
social interaction 11, 36, 55, 13348
and difference 90, 91, 93, 94, 103, 109
and Ecological Model 14, 1617
and groups 117, 118, 119, 121, 128
and power 234, 25
social network analysis 1235
social network websites 27, 51, 5960
social networks 11, 97, 1012, 121
social skills 20, 49, 67, 75, 110, 136, 1446
Social Skills Group Intervention (S.S. GRIN)
144
Social Skills Training (SST) program 145
social workers 75
socio-emotional development 127, 128,
138, 139, 140, 141
Somalia 41
South Africa 43, 54, 99
South Korea 32
Southern Poverty Law Center 12930
Spain 26, 68
sport 22, 23
Springfield, Oregon 39
staff training 69, 712, 75, 84, 868, 143
197
teachers 55, 72, 87, 145

status, social 6, 2022, 37, 94, 1089
intra-group 122, 1234, 125
status quo 32, 37
stereotyping 104, 106, 11617, 136
Stick Up for Yourself book 145
Stockdale, Margaret S. 54, 55
student-teacher relationships 70, 73, 98,
11619, 133
substance abuse 101, 102, 140
suburban communities 54, 556, 57, 73, 93
Sugimori, Shinkichi 40
suicide 2021, 29, 38, 126, 127, 134, 143
and LGBTQ 60, 100, 101, 102
supervision, adult 36, 72, 74, 768, 86, 146
Support Groups program 445
support networks 72, 84, 87, 98, 106, 119
Swearer, Susan 18, 68
Sweden 33, 34, 59
Switzerland 33, 73, 135
Symbolic Interaction 1415, 1617, 19, 31
systems theory 1314, 17
Taiwan 25, 32, 122
Targeting Bullying Program 68
teacher training 55, 72, 87, 145
teachers 18
74, 87, 116, 118, 143
128
as bystanders 87, 119
and LGBTQ 100, 101
student-teacher relationships 70, 73,
98, 11619, 133
teasing 4, 122
telling the teacher see reporting bullying
Teske, Steven C. 84
Texas 62
text-messaging 50
Thailand 37
Thorne, Barrie 23
Timm, Victoria 27, 54
TipNow website 143
Title IX 99
TMR study 31, 39
Tokunaga, Robert S. 50
tribal societies 8990
198
trolling 52
trust 66, 68, 69, 70, 119
Turkey 50, 92
twins 53
understanding, shared 1, 69, 72
United Kingdom
68, 99, 100, 102, 127, 129, 145
104, 106, 140
and victims 40, 134
see also England
United Nations 412
United States 6, 78, 26, 32, 38
129, 130, 145
and LGBTQ 99100, 1012
and social integration 127, 128
Whole-School Approach 68, 73
125, 134
and bullying rates 6, 7, 33, 34, 35,
73, 86, 140
and community 48, 54, 56, 57,
58, 59
and gender 95, 96, 97, 122
and group dynamics 119, 123
and rural areas 56, 73
and school shootings 1, 389
and cyber bullying 50, 51, 59, 62, 140
and groups 119, 123, 125
and human rights 41, 42
and school shootings 1, 389, 60, 61
unowned spaces 76, 78
urban areas 54, 556, 57, 73, 93, 106
values, cultural 26, 31, 138
values, social 89, 90, 91
Van Ness, Daniel 74
Vandebosch, Heidi 7
Veenstra, Ren 89
victim support 128
victimization 39, 49, 52, 95, 1046
victims

1256, 135
boys as 39, 91, 93
being bullied by girls 39, 92, 97, 112
and bullying culture 7, 32
and bully/victim relationship 3,
1516, 30, 115
characteristics 19, 26, 117, 135,
1378
and community/social factors 29,
48, 90
bully-victims 20, 57, 59, 92, 135, 13940
consequences to 134
marginalization 19, 24, 48, 956,
115, 1234
see also depression; health,
mental; suicide
girls as 39, 91, 92, 93, 112
and school shootings 1, 389
videos 63, 86, 126
violence, community 48, 53, 54, 55
violencia 26
Wales 33, 53
Wang, Jing 7, 59
Washington DC 62
weakness 19, 90, 91, 94, 138
weapons 1, 389, 60, 61, 95, 96
websites, anti-bullying 5960
Wei, Hsi-Sheng 122
West, Candace 94
Western countries 3741
white people 104, 108, 112, 123
Whitney, Irene 35, 49, 110
whole-school approach 10, 27, 49, 6588,
113, 116, 128, 141, 1467
Williams, Kirk R. 70
Wilson, Dorian 118
Witvliet, Miranda 119
Wong, Dennis S.W. 75, 76
World Health Organization (WHO) 33, 137
Xie, Hongling 123
Ybarra, Michele L. 50
zero-tolerance policies 60, 61, 71, 75, 84

Bullying As A Social Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying As A Social Experience

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying As A Social Experience

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying as a Social Experience

This page has been left blank intentionally