information on bullying for a research paper

Advertisement

Open Science: Recommendations for Research on School Bullying

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

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

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

3470 Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

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

Similar content being viewed by others

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

The Importance of Being Attentive to Social Processes in School Bullying Research: Adopting a Constructivist Grounded Theory Approach

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

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

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

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

The Replication Crisis

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

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

The Incentive Culture in Academia

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

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

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

Questionable Research Practices

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

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

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

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

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

Low Statistical Power

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

QRPs in Qualitative Research

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

The Prevalence and Impact of QRPs

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

Box 1 The Replication Crisis

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

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

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

Open Science

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

Box 2 Key Reading on Open Science

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

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

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

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

Open Publication, Open Data, and Reporting Standards

Open publication.

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

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

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

Reporting Standards

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

Recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replication Studies

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

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

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

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

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

Box 4 Useful Resources on Replication Studies

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

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

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

Pre-Registration

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

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

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

State and justify your chosen definition of bullying.

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Registering Quantitative Studies

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

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

Pre-Registering Qualitative Studies

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

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

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

Integrating Participatory Research Methods into Pre-Registration

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

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

The Perceived Challenges of Pre-Registration.

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

The Impact of Pre-Registration.

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

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

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

The Benefits of Open Science for Researchers

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

Box 6 Pre-Registration

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

Book   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Nathalie Noret

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

Simon C. Hunter & Rebecca Johnson

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

Simon C. Hunter

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

Sofia Pimenta & Rachel Taylor

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathalie Noret .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

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

Download citation

Accepted : 01 June 2022

Published : 30 June 2022

Issue Date : December 2023

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

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

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

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

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

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

STUDY CHARGE

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

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

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

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

CONTEXT FOR THE STUDY

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

Historical Context

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

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

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

___________________

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

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

Federal Efforts to Address Bullying and Related Topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above are examples of federal initiatives aimed at promoting the

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

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

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

Definitional Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH

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

Information Gathering

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

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

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

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

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

Terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank.

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

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

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

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

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

Get Email Updates

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

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

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

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

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

110k Accesses

18 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Study outcome

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

Primary exposure

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

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

Statistical analyses

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

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

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

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Code availability

Not applicable.

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

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

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

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Håkan Källmén

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

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

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

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

Bullying: A Guide to Research, Intervention, and Prevention

Dean, Professor, and The Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Chair in Child and Family

• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The phenomenon of bullying is highly complex. Bullying issues span individual to societal variables, including individual characteristics and vulnerability, peer and family relationships and dynamics, classroom and school milieu and societal values and attitudes, including stigma, and discrimination. Moreover, new forms of bullying such as cyber bullying have emerged, with unique implications for prevention and intervention. The prevalence of bullying suggests that bullying may be one of the underlying issues when youth struggle with social, emotional or academic difficulties, although bullying is likely not mentioned or even considered to be part of the presenting problem. The impact of the child or youth’s involvement in bullying, as victim or as the aggressor, might consequently go unrecognized—by the child or youth and their parents and/or by a practitioner. There is a tremendous amount of research on the prevalence, associated factors and effects of bullying; on the theoretical approaches applied to bullying; and on the evaluation of anti-bullying prevention and intervention school wide programs. This book is a compilation of relevant information on bullying. Challenges and obstacles to addressing bullying are reviewed as are practice principles to address barriers in prevention and intervention with children and youth who are bullied and who bully.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Bullying: What We Know Based On 40 Years of Research

APA journal examines science aimed at understanding causes, prevention

WASHINGTON — A special issue of American Psychologist ® provides a comprehensive review of over 40 years of research on bullying among school age youth, documenting the current understanding of the complexity of the issue and suggesting directions for future research.

“The lore of bullies has long permeated literature and popular culture. Yet bullying as a distinct form of interpersonal aggression was not systematically studied until the 1970s. Attention to the topic has since grown exponentially,” said Shelley Hymel, PhD, professor of human development, learning and culture at the University of British Columbia, a scholarly lead on the special issue along with Susan M. Swearer, PhD, professor of school psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “Inspired by the 2011 U.S. White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, this collection of articles documents current understanding of school bullying.”

The special issue consists of an introductory overview  (PDF, 90KB) by Hymel and Swearer, co-directors of the Bullying Research Network, and five articles on various research areas of bullying including the long-term effects of bullying into adulthood, reasons children bully others, the effects of anti-bullying laws and ways of translating research into anti-bullying practice.

Articles in the issue:

Long-Term Adult Outcomes of Peer Victimization in Childhood and Adolescence: Pathways to Adjustment and Maladjustment  (PDF, 122KB) by Patricia McDougall, PhD, University of Saskatchewan, and Tracy Vaillancourt, PhD, University of Ottawa.

The experience of being bullied is painful and difficult. Its negative impact — on academic functioning, physical and mental health, social relationships and self-perceptions — can endure across the school years. But not every victimized child develops into a maladjusted adult. In this article, the authors provide an overview of the negative outcomes experienced by victims through childhood and adolescence and sometimes into adulthood. They then analyze findings from prospective studies to identify factors that lead to different outcomes in different people, including in their biology, timing, support systems and self-perception.

Patricia McDougall can be contacted by email or by phone at (306) 966-6203.

A Relational Framework for Understanding Bullying: Developmental Antecedents and Outcomes  (PDF, 151KB) by Philip Rodkin, PhD, and Dorothy Espelage, PhD, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and Laura Hanish, PhD, Arizona State University.

How do you distinguish bullying from aggression in general? In this review, the authors describe bullying from a relationship perspective. In order for bullying to be distinguished from other forms of aggression, a relationship must exist between the bully and the victim, there must be an imbalance of power between the two and it must take place over a period of time. “Bullying is perpetrated within a relationship, albeit a coercive, unequal, asymmetric relationship characterized by aggression,” wrote the authors. Within that perspective, the image of bullies as socially incompetent youth who rely on physical coercion to resolve conflicts is nothing more than a stereotype. While this type of “bully-victim” does exist and is primarily male, the authors describe another type of bully who is more socially integrated and has surprisingly high levels of popularity among his or her peers. As for the gender of victims, bullying is just as likely to occur between boys and girls as it is to occur in same-gender groups.  

Dorothy Espelage can be contacted by email or by phone at (217) 333-9139.

Translating Research to Practice in Bullying Prevention  (PDF, 157KB) by Catherine Bradshaw, PhD, University of Virginia.

This paper reviews the research and related science to develop a set of recommendations for effective bullying prevention programs. From mixed findings on existing programs, the author identifies core elements of promising prevention approaches (e.g., close playground supervision, family involvement, and consistent classroom management strategies) and recommends a three-tiered public health approach that can attend to students at all risk levels. However, the author notes, prevention efforts must be sustained and integrated to effect change. 

Catherine Bradshaw can be contacted by email or by phone at (434) 924-8121.

Law and Policy on the Concept of Bullying at School  (PDF, 126KB) by Dewey Cornell, PhD, University of Virginia, and Susan Limber, PhD, Clemson University.

Since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, all states but one have passed anti-bullying laws, and multiple court decisions have made schools more accountable for peer victimization. Unfortunately, current legal and policy approaches, which are strongly rooted in laws regarding harassment and discrimination, do not provide adequate protection for all bullied students. In this article, the authors provide a review of the legal framework underpinning many anti-bullying laws and make recommendations on best practices for legislation and school policies to effectively address the problem of bullying.

Dewey Cornell can be contacted by email or by phone at (434) 924-0793.

Understanding the Psychology of Bullying: Moving Toward a Social-Ecological Diathesis-Stress Model by Susan Swearer, PhD, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Shelley Hymel, PhD, University of British Columbia.

Children’s involvement in bullying varies across roles and over time. A student may be victimized by classmates but bully a sibling at home. Bullying is a complex form of interpersonal aggression that can be both a one-on-one process and a group phenomenon. It negatively affects not only the victim, but the bully and witnesses as well. In this paper, the authors suggest an integrated model for examining bullying and victimization that recognizes the complex and dynamic nature of bullying across multiple settings over time.

Susan Swearer  can be contacted by email or by phone at (402) 472-1741. Shelley Hymel can be contacted by email or by phone at (604) 822-6022.

Copies of articles are also available from APA Public Affairs , (202) 336-5700.

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes more than 122,500 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people's lives.

Jim Sliwa (202) 336-5707

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people.

• School of Education and Social Care, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom

Bullying research has traditionally been dominated by largescale cohort studies focusing on the personality traits of bullies and victims. These studies focus on bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes. A limitation of this approach is that it does not explain why bullying happens. Qualitative research can help shed light on these factors. This paper discusses the findings from four mainly qualitative research projects including a systematic review and three empirical studies involving young people to various degrees within the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research. Much quantitative research suggests that young people are a homogenous group and through the use of surveys and other large scale methods, generalizations can be drawn about how bullying is understood and how it can be dealt with. Findings from the studies presented in this paper, add to our understanding that young people appear particularly concerned about the role of wider contextual and relational factors in deciding if bullying has happened. These studies underscore the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Moreover, to appreciate the relational and social contexts underpinning bullying behaviors, adults and young people need to work together on bullying agendas and engage with multiple definitions, effects and forms of support. Qualitative methodologies, in particular participatory research opens up the complexities of young lives and enables these insights to come to the fore. Through this approach, effective supports can be designed based on what young people want and need rather than those interpreted as supportive through adult understanding.

Introduction

Research on school bullying has developed rapidly since the 1970s. Originating in social and psychological research in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, this body of research largely focusses on individualized personality traits of perpetrators and victims ( Olweus, 1995 ). Global interest in this phenomenon subsequently spread and bullying research began in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ). Usually quantitative in nature, many studies examine bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes ( Patton et al., 2017 ). Whilst quantitative research collates key demographic information to show variations in bullying behaviors and tendencies, this dominant bullying literature fails to explain why bullying happens. Nor does it attempt to understand the wider social contexts in which bullying occurs. Qualitative research on the other hand, in particular participatory research, can help shed light on these factors by highlighting the complexities of the contextual and relational aspects of bullying and the particular challenges associated with addressing it. Patton et al. (2017) in their systematic review of qualitative methods used in bullying research, found that the use of such methods can enhance academic and practitioner understanding of bullying.

In this paper, I draw on four bullying studies; one systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative research ( O’Brien, 2009 ) and three empirical qualitative studies ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ; O’Brien, 2016 , 2017 ) (see Table 1 below). I discuss how participatory research methodologies, to varying degrees, were used to facilitate bullying knowledge production among teams of young people and adults. Young people in these presented studies were consequently involved in the research process along a continuum of involvement ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ). To the far left of the continuum, young people involved in research are referred to as “active respondents” and their data informs teacher practice. To the middle of the continuum sit “students as co-researchers” who work with teachers to explore an issue which has been identified by that teacher. Finally to the right, sit “students as researchers” who conduct their own research with support from teachers. Moving from left to right of the continuum shows a shift in power dynamics between young people and adults where a partnership develops. Young people are therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspective, that of being a young person now.

Table 1. The studies.

In this paper, I advocate for the active involvement of young people in the research process in order to enhance bullying knowledge. Traditional quantitative studies have a tendency to homogenize young people by suggesting similarity in thinking about what constitutes bullying. However, qualitative studies have demonstrated that regardless of variables, young people understand bullying in different ways so there is a need for further research that starts from these perspectives and focusses on issues that young people deem important. Consequently, participatory research allows for the stories of the collective to emerge without losing the stories of the individual, a task not enabled through quantitative approaches.

What Is Bullying?

Researching school bullying has been problematic and is partly related to the difficulty in defining it ( Espelage, 2018 ). Broadly speaking, bullying is recognized as aggressive, repeated, intentional behavior involving an imbalance of power aimed toward an individual or group of individuals who cannot easily defend themselves ( Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ). In more recent times, “traditional” bullying behaviors have been extended to include cyber-bullying, involving the use of the internet and mobile-phones ( Espelage, 2018 ). Disagreements have been noted in the literature about how bullying is defined by researchers linked to subject discipline and culture. Some researchers for example, disagree about the inclusion or not of repetition in definitions ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ) and these disagreements have had an impact on interpreting findings and prevalence rates. However, evidence further suggests that young people also view bullying in different ways ( Guerin and Hennessy, 2002 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) explored differences between researchers and young people’s definitions of bullying, and found that children’s definitions were usually spontaneous, and did not always encompass the elements of repetition, power imbalance and intent. They concluded, that children need to be provided with a bullying definition so similarities and comparisons can be drawn. In contrast, Huang and Cornell (2015) found no evidence that the inclusion of a definition effected prevalence rates. Their findings, they suggest, indicate that young people use their own perceptions of bullying when answering self-report questionnaires and they are not influenced by an imposed definition.

Nevertheless, differences in children and young people’s bullying definitions are evident in the research literature and have been explained by recourse to age and stage of development ( Smith et al., 2002 ) and their assumed lack of understanding about what constitutes bullying ( Boulton and Flemington, 1996 ). Naylor et al. (2001) for example, found that younger children think similarly in their definitions of bullying, while Smith et al. (2002) found that 8 year olds did not distinguish as clearly between different forms of behavioral aggression as 14 year olds. Methodological limitations associated with understanding bullying have been identified by Forsberg et al. (2018) and Maunder and Crafter (2018) . These authors postulate that quantitative approaches, although providing crucial insights in understanding bullying, are reliant on pre-defined variables, which can shield some of the complexities that qualitative designs can unravel, as individual experiences of bullying are brought to the fore. Indeed, La Fontaine (1991) suggests that unlike standard self-report questionnaires and other quantitative methods used to collect bullying data, analyzing qualitative data such as those collected from a helpline, enables the voice of young people to be heard and consequently empowers adults to understand bullying on their terms rather than relying solely on interpretations and perceptions of adults. Moore and Maclean (2012) collected survey, as well as interview and focus group data, on victimization occurring on the journey to and from school. They found that what young people determined as victimization varied and was influenced by a multifaceted array of circumstances, some of which adults were unaware of. Context for example, played an important role where certain behaviors in one situation could be regarded as victimization while in another they were not. Specific behaviors including ignoring an individual was particularly hurtful and supporting a friend who was the subject of victimization could lead to their own victimization.

Lee (2006) suggests that some bullying research does not reflect individual experiences, and are thus difficult for participants to relate to. Canty et al. (2016) reiterates this and suggests that when researchers provide young people with bullying definitions in which to position their own experiences, this can mask some of the complexities that the research intends to uncover. Such approaches result in an oversight into the socially constructed and individual experiences of bullying ( Eriksen, 2018 ). Griffin and Gross (2004) further argue that when researchers use vague or ambiguous definitions an “overclassification of children as bullies or victims” (p. 381) ensues. Consequently, quantitative research does not consider children as reliable in interpreting their own lived experiences and therefore some of the interactions they consider as bullying, that do not fit within the conventional definitions, are concealed. This approach favors the adult definition of bullying regarding it as “more reliable” than the definitions of children and young people Canty et al. (2016) . The perceived “seriousness” of bullying has also been explored. Overall, young people and adults are more likely to consider direct bullying (face-to-face actions including hitting, threatening and calling names) as “more serious” than indirect bullying (rumor spreading, social exclusion, forcing others to do something they do not want to do) ( Maunder et al., 2010 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2011 ). This perception of “seriousness,” alongside ambiguous definitions of bullying, has further implications for reporting it. Despite the advice given to young people to report incidents of school bullying ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ), the literature suggests that many are reluctant to do so ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ).

Several factors have been highlighted as to why young people are reluctant to report bullying ( Black et al., 2010 ). deLara (2012) , found apprehension in reporting bullying to teachers due to the fear that they will either not do enough or too much and inadvertently make the situation worse, or fear that teachers will not believe young people. Research also shows that young people are reluctant to tell their parents about bullying due to perceived over-reaction and fear that the bullying will be reported to their school ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ). Oliver and Candappa (2007) suggest that young people are more likely to confide in their friends than adults (see also Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, if young people believe they are being bullied, but are unable to recognize their experiences within a predefined definition of bullying, this is likely to impact on their ability to report it.

Research from psychology, sociology, education and other disciplines, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, have enabled the generation of bullying knowledge to date. However, in order to understand why bullying happens and how it is influenced by wider social constructs there is a need for further qualitative studies, which hear directly from children and young people themselves. The next section of this paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, which recognizes that young people are active agents in generating new bullying knowledge alongside adults.

Theoretical Underpinnings – Hearing From Children and Young People

The sociology of childhood ( James, 2007 ; Tisdall and Punch, 2012 ) and children’s rights agenda more broadly ( United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ) have offered new understandings and methods for research which recognize children and young people as active agents and experts on their own lives. From this perspective, research is conducted with rather than on children and young people ( Kellett, 2010 ).

Participatory methodologies have proven particularly useful for involving young people in research as co-researchers (see for example O’Brien and Moules, 2007 ; Stoudt, 2009 ; Kellett, 2010 ; Spears et al., 2016 ). This process of enquiry actively involves those normally being studied in research activities. Previously, “traditional” researchers devalued the experiences of research participants arguing that due to their distance from them, they themselves are better equipped to interpret these experiences ( Beresford, 2006 ). However, Beresford (2006) suggests that the shorter the distance between direct experience and interpretation, the less distorted and inaccurate the resulting knowledge is likely to be. Jones (2004) further advocates that when young people’s voices are absent from research about them the research is incomplete. Certainly Spears et al. (2016) , adopted this approach in their study with the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Australia. Young people played an active role within a multidisciplinary team alongside researchers, practitioners and policymakers to co-create and co-evaluate the learning from four marketing campaigns for youth wellbeing through participatory research. Through this methodological approach, findings show that young people were able to reconceptualize mental health and wellbeing from their own perspectives as well as share their lived experiences with others ( Spears et al., 2016 ). Bland and Atweh (2007) , Ozer and Wright (2012) , highlight the benefits afforded to young people through this process, including participating in dialog with decision-makers and bringing aspects of teaching and learning to their attention.

Against this background, data presented for this paper represents findings from four studies underpinned by the ethos that bullying is socially constructed and is best understood by exploring the context to which it occurs ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). This socially constructed view focusses on the evolving positions within young people’s groups, and argues that within a bullying situation sometimes a young person is the bully, sometimes the victim and sometimes the bystander/witness, which contrasts the traditional view of bullying ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). The focus therefore is on group relationships and dynamics. For that reason, Horton (2011) proposes that if bullying is an extensive problem including many young people, then focusing entirely on personality traits will not generate new bullying knowledge and will be problematic in terms of interventions. It is important to acknowledge that this change in focus and view of bullying and how it is manifested in groups, does not negate the individual experiences of bullying rather the focus shifts to the process of being accepted, or not, by the group ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

The Studies

This section provides a broad overview of the four included studies underpinned by participatory methodologies. Table 1 presents the details of each study. Young people were involved in the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research, along a continuum as identified by Bragg and Fielding (2005) . This ranged from “active respondents” to the left of the continuum, “students as co-researchers” in the middle and “students as researchers” to the right of the continuum. Young people were therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspectives ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ).

A key finding from study one ( O’Brien, 2009 ) was the lack of voice afforded to young people through the research process and can be seen to reflect the far left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum, as young people were not directly involved as “active respondents” but their views were included in secondary data analysis and informed the studies that followed. For example, the quantitative studies used an agreed academic definition of bullying which may or may not have influenced how young participants defined bullying within the studies. On the other hand, the qualitative study involved a group of students in deciding which questions to ask of the research participants and in interpreting the findings.

In contrast, study two ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ) was commissioned and led by a group of young people called PEAR (Public health, Education, Awareness, Researchers), who were established to advise on public health research in England. PEAR members were based in two large English cities and comprised 20 young people aged between 13 and 20 years. The premise of the study was that PEAR members wanted to commission research into cyber bullying and the effects this has on mental health from the perspectives of young people rather than adult perspectives. This project was innovative as young people commissioned the research and participated as researchers ( Davey, 2011 ) and can be seen to reflect the middle “students as co-researchers” as well as moving toward to right “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum. Although the young people did not carry out the day-to-day work on the project, they were responsible for leading and shaping it. More importantly, the research topic and focus were decided with young people and adults together.

Study three ( O’Brien, 2016 ) involved five self-selecting students from an independent day and boarding school who worked with me to answer this question: What do young people in this independent day and boarding school view as the core issue of bullying in the school and how do they want to address this? These students called themselves R4U (Research for You) with the slogan researching for life without fear . Three cycles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) ensued, where decision making about direction of the research, including methods, analysis and dissemination of findings were made by the research team. As current students of the school, R4U had a unique “insider knowledge” that complemented my position as the “academic researcher.” By working together to generate understanding about bullying at the school, the findings thus reflected this diversity in knowledge. As the project evolved so too did the involvement of the young researchers and my knowledge as the “outsider” (see O’Brien et al., 2018a for further details). Similar to study two, this project is situated between the middle: “students as co-researchers” and the right: “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum.

Study four ( O’Brien, 2017 ) was small-scale and involved interviewing four young people who were receiving support from a charity providing therapeutic and educational support to young people who self-exclude from school due to anxiety, as a result of bullying. Self-exclusion, for the purposes of this study, means that a young person has made a decision not to go to school. It is different from “being excluded” or “truanting” because these young people do not feel safe at school and are therefore too anxious to attend. Little is known about the experiences of young people who self-exclude due to bullying and this study helped to unravel some of these issues. This study reflects the left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum where the young people were involved as “active respondents” in informing adult understanding of the issue.

A variety of research methods were used across the four studies including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups (see Table 1 for more details). In studies two and three, young researchers were fundamental in deciding the types of questions to be asked, where they were asked and who we asked. In study three the young researchers conducted their own peer-led interviews. The diversity of methods used across the studies are a strength for this paper. An over-reliance on one method is not portrayed and the methods used reflected the requirements of the individual studies.

Informed Consent

Voluntary positive agreement to participate in research is referred to as “consent” while “assent,” refers to a person’s compliance to participate ( Coyne, 2010 ). The difference in these terms are normally used to distinguish the “legal competency of children over and under 16 years in relation to research.” ( Coyne, 2010 , 228). In England, children have a legal right to consent so therefore assent is non-applicable ( Coyne, 2010 ). However, there are still tensions surrounding the ability of children and young people under the age of 18 years to consent in research which are related to their vulnerability, age and stage of development ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ). The research in the three empirical studies (two, three and four) started from the premise that all young participants were competent to consent to participate and took the approach of Coyne (2010) who argues that parental/carer consent is not always necessary in social research. University Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are nonetheless usually unfamiliar with the theoretical underpinnings that children are viewed as social actors and generally able to consent for themselves ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ; Fox, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2015 ).

In order to ensure the young people in these reported studies were fully informed of the intentions of each project and to adhere to ethical principles, age appropriate participant information sheets were provided to all participants detailing each study’s requirements. Young people were then asked to provide their own consent by signing a consent form, any questions they had about the studies were discussed. Information sheets were made available to parents in studies three and four. In study two, the parents of young people participating in the focus groups were informed of the study through the organizations used to recruit the young people. My full contact details were provided on these sheets so parents/carers could address any queries they had about the project if they wished. When young people participated in the online questionnaire (study two) we did not know who they were so could not provide separate information to parents. Consequently, all participants were given the opportunity to participate in the research without the consent of their parents/carers unless they were deemed incompetent to consent. In this case the onus was on the adult (parent or carer for example) to prove incompetency ( Alderson, 2007 ). Favorable ethical approval, including approval for the above consent procedures, was granted by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University.

In the next section I provide a synthesis of the findings across the four studies before discussing how participatory research with young people can offer new understandings of bullying and its impacts on young people.

Although each study was designed to answer specific bullying research questions, the following key themes cut across all four studies 1 :

• Bullying definitions

◦ Behaviors

• Impact of bullying on victim

• Reporting bullying

Bullying Definitions

Young people had various understandings about what they considered bullying to be. Overall, participants agreed that aggressive direct behaviors, mainly focusing on physical aggression, constituted bullying:

“…if someone is physically hurt then that is bullying straight away.” (Female, study 3).

“I think [cyber-bullying is] not as bad because with verbal or physical, you are more likely to come in contact with your attacker regularly, and that can be disturbing. However, with cyber-bullying it is virtual so you can find ways to avoid the person.” (Female, study 2).

Name-calling was an ambiguous concept, young people generally believed that in isolation name-calling might not be bullying behavior or it could be interpreted as “joking” or “banter”:

“I never really see any, a bit of name calling and taking the mick but nothing ever serious.” (Male, study 3).

The concept of “banter” or “joking” was explored in study three as a result of the participatory design. Young people suggested “banter” involves:

“…a personal joke or group banter has no intention to harm another, it is merely playful jokes.” (Female, study 3).

However, underpinning this understanding of “banter” was the importance of intentionality:

“Banter saying things bad as a joke and everyone knows it is a joke.” (Male, study 3).

“Banter” was thus contentious when perception and reception were ambiguous. In some cases, “banter” was considered “normal behavior”:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke…” (Male, study 3).

The same view was evident in relation to cyber-bullying. Some participants were rather dismissive of this approach suggesting that it did not exist:

“I don’t really think it exists. If you’re being cyber-“bullied” then there is something wrong with you- it is insanely easy to avoid, by blocking people and so on. Perhaps it consists of people insulting you online?” (Male, study 2).

When young people considered additional factors added to name calling such as the type of name-calling, or aspects of repetition or intention, then a different view was apparent.

“…but it has to be constant it can’t be a single time because that always happens.” (Male, study 3).

Likewise with words used on social media, young people considered intentionality in their consideration of whether particular behaviors were bullying, highlighting important nuances in how bullying is conceptualized:

“Some people they don’t want to sound cruel but because maybe if you don’t put a smiley face on it, it might seem cruel when sometimes you don’t mean it.” (Female, study 2).

Study one also found that young people were more likely to discuss sexist or racist bullying in interviews or focus groups but this information was scarce in the questionnaire data. This is possibly as a result of how the questions were framed and the researchers’ perspectives informing the questions.

Evident across the four studies was the understanding young people had about the effects of continuous name-calling on victims:

“…you can take one comment, you can just like almost brush it off, but if you keep on being bullied and bullied and bullied then you might kind of think, hang on a minute, they’ve taken it a step too far, like it’s actually become more personal, whereas just like a cheeky comment between friends it’s become something that’s more serious and more personal and more annoying or hurtful to someone.” (Female, study 3).

“Cyber-bullying is basically still verbal bullying and is definitely psychological bullying. Any bullying is psychological though, really. And any bullying is going to be harmful.” (Female, study 2).

Aspects of indirect bullying (social exclusion) were features of studies one and three. For the most part, the research reviewed in study one found that as young people got older they were less likely to consider characteristics of social exclusion in their definitions of bullying. In study three, when discussing the school’s anti-bullying policy, study participants raised questions about “ isolating a student from a friendship group .” Some contested this statement as a form of bullying:

“…. there is avoiding, as in, not actively playing a role in trying to be friends which I don’t really see as bullying I see this as just not getting someone to join your friendship group. Whereas if you were actually leaving him out and rejecting him if he tries to be friends then I think I would see that as malicious and bullying.” (Male, study 3).

“Isolating a student from a friendship group – I believe there are various reasons for which a student can be isolated from a group – including by choice.” (Female, study 3).

Cyber-bullying was explored in detail in study two but less so in the other three studies. Most study two participants considered that cyber-bullying was just as harmful, or in some cases worse than, ‘traditional’ bullying due to the use of similar forms of “harassment,” “antagonizing,” “tormenting,” and ‘threatening’ through online platforms. Some young people believed that the physical distance between the victim and the bully is an important aspect of cyber-bullying:

“I think it’s worse because people find it easier to abuse someone when not face to face.” (Male, study 2).

“I think it could be worse, because lots of other people can get involved, whereas when it’s physical bullying it’s normally just between one or two or a smaller group, things could escalate too because especially Facebook, they’ve got potential to escalate.” (Female, study 2).

Other participants in study two spoke about bullying at school which transfers to an online platform highlighting no “escape” for some. In addition, it was made clearer that some young people considered distancing in relation to bullying and how this influences perceptions of severity:

“…when there’s an argument it can continue when you’re not at school or whatever and they can continue it over Facebook and everyone can see it then other people get involved.” (Female, study 2).

“I was cyber-bullied on Facebook, because someone put several hurtful comments in response to my status updates and profile pictures. This actually was extended into school by the bully…” (Male, study 2).

Impact of Bullying on Victim

Although bullying behaviors were a primary consideration of young people’s understanding of bullying, many considered the consequences associated with bullying and in particular, the impact on mental health. In these examples, the specifics of the bullying event were irrelevant to young people and the focus was on how the behavior was received by the recipient.

In study two, young people divulged how cyber-bullying had adversely affected their ability to go to school and to socialize outside school. Indeed some young people reported the affects it had on their confidence and self-esteem:

“I developed anorexia nervosa. Although not the single cause of my illness, bullying greatly contributed to my low self-esteem which led to becoming ill.” (Female, study 2).

“It hurts people’s feelings and can even lead to committing suicide….” (Female, study 2).

Across the studies, young people who had been bullied themselves shared their individual experiences:

“….you feel insecure and it just builds up and builds up and then in the end you have no self-confidence.” (Female, study 2).

“…it was an everyday thing I just couldn’t take it and it was causing me a lot of anxiety.” (Male, study 4).

“I am different to everyone in my class …. I couldn’t take it no more I was upset all the time and it made me feel anxious and I wasn’t sleeping but spent all my time in bed being sad and unhappy.” (Male, study 4).

Young people who had not experienced bullying themselves agreed that the impact it had on a person was a large determiner of whether bullying had happened:

“When your self-confidence is severely affected and you become shy. Also when you start believing what the bullies are saying about you and start to doubt yourself.” (Female, study 3).

“…it makes the victim feel bad about themselves which mostly leads to depression and sadness.” (Male, study 2).

Further evidence around the impact of bullying was apparent in the data in terms of how relational aspects can affect perceived severity. In the case of cyber-bullying, young people suggested a sense of detachment because the bullying takes place online. Consequently, as the relational element is removed bullying becomes easier to execute:

“…because people don’t have to face them over a computer so it’s so much easier. It’s so much quicker as well cos on something like Facebook it’s not just you, you can get everyone on Facebook to help you bully that person.” (Female, study 2).

“Due to technology being cheaper, it is easier for young people to bully people in this way because they don’t believe they can be tracked.” (Male, study 2).

“The effects are the same and often the bullying can be worse as the perpetrator is unknown or can disguise their identity. Away from the eyes of teachers etc., more can be done without anyone knowing.” (Female, study 2).

Relational aspects of bullying were further highlighted with regards to how “banter” was understood, particularly with in-group bullying and how the same example can either be seen as “banter” or bullying depending on the nature of the relationship:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke. well, I haven’t done it but I’ve been in a crowd where people do it, so I don’t want to get involved just in case it started an argument.” (Female, study 3).

“But it also depends…who your groups with, for example, if I spoke to my friends from [School]… I wouldn’t like use taboo language with them because to them it may seem inappropriate and probably a bit shocked, but if I was with my friends outside of school we use taboo language, we’ll be ourselves and we’ll be comfortable with it, and if a stranger walked past and heard us obviously they’d be thinking that we’re being bullied ourselves.” (Female, study 3).

Furthermore, how individuals are perceived by others tended to influence whether they were believed or not. In study four for example, participants suggested that who the bullies were within the school might have impacted how complaints were acted upon by school officials:

“When I went to the school about it, the students said I had attacked them – all eight of them! I just realized that no one believes me….” (Female, study 4).

While in study three, a characteristic of bullying was the influence the aggressor has over the victim:

“When the victim starts to feel in danger or start to fear the other person. Consequently he or she tries to avoid the bad guy (or girl!)” (Male, study 3).

These relational and contextual issues also influenced a young person’s ability to report bullying.

Reporting Bullying

Young people were more likely to report bullying when they considered it was ‘serious’ enough. Just under half of participants in study two sought emotional/practical support if they worried about, or were affected by cyber-bullying, with most talking to their parents. In study three, young people were less likely to seek support but when they did, most went to their teachers. In study four, all participants reported bullying in school where they did not feel supported.

Fear of making the bullying worse was captured across the studies as a reason for not reporting it:

“I’m scared that if I tell then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“The bully might bully you if he finds out.” (Male, study 3).

Being able to deal with the incident themselves was also a reason for non-reporting:

“…it’s embarrassing and not necessary, my friends help me through it, adults never seem to understand.” (Female, study 2).

“I don’t tend to talk to anyone about it, I just keep it to myself and obviously that’s the worst thing you should ever do, you should never keep it to yourself, because I regret keeping it to myself to be honest….” (Female, study 3).

“…but I think I’d deal with it myself ‘cos. I was quite insecure but now I’m quite secure with myself, so I’ll sort it out myself. I think it’s just over time I’ve just sort of hardened to it.” (Male, study 3).

Most young people seeking support for bullying said they spoke to an adult but the helpfulness of this support varied. This finding is important for understanding relationships between young people and adults. Those who felt supported by their teachers for example, suggested that they took the time to listen and understood what they were telling them. They also reassured young people who in turn believed that the adult they confided in would know what to do:

“So I think the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she’s a good listener and she can sense when you don’t want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers force it out of you.” (Female, study 3).

“My school has had assemblies about cyber-bullying and ways you can stop it or you can report it anonymously…. you can write your name or you can’t, it’s all up to YOU.” (Male, study 2).

Others however had a negative experience of reporting bullying and a number of reasons were provided as to why. Firstly, young people stated that adults did not believe them which made the bullying worse on some level:

“I went to the teachers a couple of times but, no, I don’t think they could do anything. I did sort of go three times and it still kept on going, so I just had to sort of deal with it and I sort of took it on the cheek….” (Male, study 3).

Secondly, young people suggested that adults did not always listen to their concerns, or in some cases did not take their concerns seriously enough:

“…I had had a really bad day with the girls so I came out and I explained all this to my head of year and how it was affecting me but instead of supporting me he put me straight into isolation.” (Male, study 4).

“I could understand them thinking I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with one incident but this was 18 months of me constantly reporting different incidents.” (Female, study 4).

“If cyber-bullying is brought to our school’s attention, usually, they expect printed proof of the situation and will take it into their own hand depending on its seriousness. However this is usually a couple of detentions. And it’s just not enough.” (Female, study 2).

Finally, some young people suggested that teachers did not always know what to do when bullying concerns were raised and consequently punished those making the complaint:

“I think I would have offered support instead of punishment to someone who was suffering with anxiety. I wouldn’t have seen anxiety as bad behavior I think that’s quite ignorant but they saw it as bad behavior.” (Male, study 4).

It is worth reiterating, that the majority of young people across the studies did not report bullying to anybody , which further underscores the contextual issues underpinning bullying and its role in enabling or disabling bullying behaviors. Some considered it was “pointless” reporting the bullying and others feared the situation would be made worse if they did:

“My school hide and say that bullying doesn’t go on cos they don’t wanna look bad for Ofsted.” (Male, study 2).

“My school is oblivious to anything that happens, many things against school rules happen beneath their eyes but they either refuse to acknowledge it or are just not paying attention so we must suffer.” (Female, study 2).

“That’s why I find that when you get bullied you’re scared of telling because either, in most cases the teacher will – oh yeah, yeah, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out and then they don’t tend to, and then they get bullied more for it.” (Female, study 3).

Young people were concerned that reporting bullying would have a negative impact on their friendship groups. Some were anxious about disrupting the status quo within:

“I think everyone would talk about me behind my back and say I was mean and everyone would hate me.” (Female, study 3).

Others expressed concern about the potential vulnerability they were likely to experience if they raised concerns of bullying:

“I was worried it might affect my other friendships.”(Boy, study 2).

“I’m scared that if I tell, then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“….because they might tell off the bullies and then the bullies will like get back at you.” (Female, study 3).

These findings underscore the importance of contextual and relational factors in understanding bullying from the perspectives of young people and how these factors influence a young person’s ability or willingness to report bullying.

Finally one young person who had self-excluded from school due to severe bullying suggested that schools:

“…need to be looking out for their students’ mental wellbeing – not only be there to teach them but to support and mentor them. Keep them safe really… I missed out on about three years of socializing outside of school because I just couldn’t do it. I think it’s important that students are encouraged to stand up for each other.” (Female, study 4).

The studies presented in this paper illustrate the multitude of perceptions underpinning young people’s understandings of what constitutes bullying, both in terms of the behavior and also the impact that this behavior has on an individual. In turn, the ambiguity of what constitutes bullying had an impact on a young person’s ability to seek support. Discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups are shown, highlighting the fluid and changing roles that occur within a bullying situation. Findings from quantitative studies have demonstrated the differing perceptions of bullying by adults and young people (see for example Smith et al., 2002 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ; Maunder et al., 2010 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ). However, by combining findings from participatory research, new understandings of the relational and contextual factors important to young people come to the fore.

Young people participating in these four studies had unique knowledge and experiences of bullying and the social interactions of other young people in their schools and wider friendship groups. The underpinning participatory design enabled me to work alongside young people to analyze and understand their unique perspectives of bullying in more detail. The research teams were therefore able to construct meaning together, based not entirely on our own assumptions and ideologies, but including the viewpoint of the wider research participant group ( Thomson and Gunter, 2008 ). Together, through the process of co-constructing bullying knowledge, we were able to build on what is already known in this field and contribute to the view that bullying is socially constructed through the experiences of young people and the groups they occupy ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

With regards to understanding what bullying is, the findings from these studies corroborate those of the wider literature from both paradigms of inquiry (for example Naylor et al., 2001 ; Canty et al., 2016 ); that being the discrepancies in definitions between adults and young people and also between young people themselves. Yet, findings here suggest that young people’s bullying definitions are contextually and relationally contingent. With the exception of physical bullying, young people did not differentiate between direct or indirect behaviors, instead they tended to agree that other contextual and relational factors played a role in deciding if particular behaviors were bullying (or not). The participatory research design enabled reflection and further investigation of the ideas that were particularly important to young people such as repetition and intentionality. Repetition was generally seen as being indicative of bullying being “serious,” and therefore more likely to be reported, and without repetition, a level of normality was perceived. This finding contradicts some work on bullying definitions, Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) for example found that regardless of the role played by young people in a bullying episode (victim, aggressor or witness), the criteria of ‘repetition’ was not important in how they defined bullying.

Relational factors underpinning young people’s perception of bullying and indeed it’s “seriousness” were further reflected in their willingness or otherwise to report it. Fear of disrupting the status quo of the wider friendship group, potentially leading to their own exclusion from the group, was raised as a concern by young people. Some were concerned their friends would not support them if they reported bullying, while others feared further retaliation as a result. Friendship groups have been identified as a source of support for those who have experienced bullying and as a protective factor against further bullying ( Allen, 2014 ). Although participants did not suggest their friendship groups are unsupportive it is possible that group dynamics underscore seeking (or not) support for bullying. Other literature has described such practices as evidence of a power imbalance ( Olweus, 1995 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ) but young people in these studies did not describe these unequal relationships in this way and instead focused on the outcomes and impacts of bullying. Indeed Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) also found that young people in their quantitative study did not consider “power imbalance” in their understanding of bullying and were more likely to consider intention. This paper, however, underscores the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Without such nuances, some behaviors may be overlooked as bullying, whereas other more obvious behaviors draw further attention. This paper also shows that contextual issues such as support structures can shift how young people see bullying. Contextual factors were evident across the four studies through the recognition of bullying being enabled or disabled by institutional factors, including a school’s ability to respond appropriately to bullying concerns. Young people suggested that schools could be influenced by bullies, perceiving them as non-threatening and consequently not dealing appropriately with the situation. Indeed some young people reported that their schools placed the onus on them as victims to change, consequently placing the “blame” on victims instead. These findings raise questions about who young people feel able to confide in about bullying as well as issues around training and teacher preparedness to deal with bullying in schools. Evidenced in these four studies, is that young people feel somewhat disconnected from adults when they have bullying concerns. Those who did report bullying, identified particular individuals they trusted and knew would support them. Novick and Isaacs (2010) identified teachers who young people felt comfortable in approaching to report bullying and described them as “most active, engaged and responsive.” (p. 291). The bullying literature suggests that as young people get older they are more likely to confide in friends than adults ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, findings from this paper indicate that although fewer young people reported bullying, those who did confided in an adult. Young people have identified that a variety of supports are required to tackle bullying and that adults need to listen and work with them so nuanced bullying behaviors are not recognized as “normal” behaviors. Within the data presented in this paper, “banter” was portrayed as “normal” behavior. Young people did not specify what behaviors they regarded as “banter,” but suggested that when banter is repeated and intentional the lines are blurred about what is bullying and what is banter.

Exploring bullying nuances in this paper, was enhanced by the involvement of young people in the research process who had a unique “insider” perspective about what it is like to be a young person now and how bullying is currently affecting young people. In studies one and four, young people were “active respondents” ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ) and provided adults with their own unique perspectives on bullying. It could be argued that study one did not involve the participation of young people. However, this study informed the basis of the subsequent studies due to the discrepancies noted in the literature about how bullying is understood between adults and young people, as well as the lack of young people’s voice and opportunity to participate in the reviewed research. Accordingly, young people’s data as “active respondents” informed adult understanding and led to future work involving more active research engagement from other young people. Participation in study four provided an opportunity for young people to contribute to future participatory research based on lived experiences as well as informing policy makers of the effects bullying has on the lives of young people ( O’Brien, 2017 ). In studies two and three, young people were involved further along Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum as “co-researchers” and “students as researchers” with these roles shifting and moving dependent on the context of the project at the time ( O’Brien et al., 2018a ). These young researchers brought unique knowledge to the projects ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ) that could not be accessed elsewhere. Perspectives offered by the young researchers supported adults in understanding more about traditional and cyber-bullying from their perspectives. Furthermore, this knowledge can be added to other, quantitative studies to further understand why bullying happens alongside bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes.

Findings from the four studies offer an alternative perspective to how bullying is understood by young people. Complexities in defining bullying have been further uncovered as understanding is informed by individual factors, as well as wider social and relational contexts ( Horton, 2011 ; Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). This has implications for the type of support young people require. This paper highlights how definitions of bullying shift in response to relational and contextual aspects deemed important to young people. Because of this, further nuances were uncovered through the research process itself as the respective studies showed discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups.

These understandings can act as a starting point for young people and adults to collaborate in research which seeks to understand bullying and the context to which it occurs. Furthermore, such collaborations enable adults to theorize and understand the complexities associated with bullying from the perspective of those at the center. There is a need for additional participatory research projects involving such collaborations where adults and young people can learn from each other as well as combining findings from different methodologies to enable a more comprehensive picture of the issues for young people to emerge. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of bullying among and between young people, specifically in relation to the contextual and relational factors underscoring perceptions of bullying.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was granted for all four studies from the Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care at the Anglia Ruskin University. The research was conducted on the premise of Gillick competency meaning that young people (in these studies over the age of 12 years) could consent for themselves to participate. Parents/carers were aware the study was happening and received information sheets explaining the process.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

These four studies were conducted at the Anglia Ruskin University. Study one was part of a wider masters degree funded by the Anglia Ruskin University, Study two was funded by a group of young people convened by the National Children’s Bureau with funding from the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom). Study three was a wider Doctoral study funded by the Anglia Ruskin University and Study four was also funded by the Anglia Ruskin University.

Conflict of Interest Statement

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

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Grace Spencer, Ruskin Fellow at the Anglia Ruskin University for providing the critical read of this manuscript and offering constructive feedback. I would also like to thank the two independent reviewers for their feedback on the drafts of this manuscript.

• ^ These findings focus on perceptions and data from the young people in the four studies. For a full discussion on adult perceptions please refer to the individual studies.

Alderson, P. (2007). Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2272–2283. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allen, M. (2014). Local Action on Health Inequalities: Building Children and Young People’s Resilience in Schools , London: Public Health England.

Google Scholar

Beresford, P. (2006). Making the connections with direct experience: from the western front to user-controlled research. Educ. Action Res. 14, 161–170.

Black, S., Weinles, D., and Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 8, 138–147. doi: 10.1177/1541204009349401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bland, D., and Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students’ voices in PAR. Educ. Action Res. 15, 337–349. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514259

Boulton, M. J., and Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school Pupils’ involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 17, 331–345. doi: 10.1177/0143034396174003

Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L., and Taylor, J. (2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 215, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038

Bragg, S., and Fielding, M. (2005). “It’s an equal thing. It’s about achieving together: student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality,” in Improving Schools Through Collaborative Enquiry , eds H. Street, and J. Temperley, (London: Continuum), 105–135.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Canty, J., Stubbe, M., Steers, D., and Collings, S. (2016). The trouble with bullying–deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into Children’s use of social media. Child. Soc. 30, 48–58. doi: 10.1111/chso.12103

Coyne, I. (2010). Research with children and young people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Child. Soc. 24, 227–237.

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 27, 1889–1910. doi: 10.1177/0886260511431436

Davey, C. (2011). Evaluation of the PEAR Project. London: National Children’s Bureau.

deLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents Don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. J. Sch. Violence 11, 288–305. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.705931

Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educ. Res. 60, 157–170. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263

Espelage, D. L. (2018). Understanding the complexity of school bully involvement. Chautauqua J. 2:20.

Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., et al. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 33, 127–142. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001

Fox, R. (2013). Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J. Youth Stud. 16, 986–999. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.815698

Griffin, R. S., and Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggr. Violent Behav. 9, 379–400. doi: 10.1016/s1359-1789(03)00033-8

Guerin, S., and Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 17, 249–261. doi: 10.1007/bf03173535

Horton, P. (2011). School bullying and social and moral orders. Child. Soc. 25, 268–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00377.x

Huang, F. L., and Cornell, D. G. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychol. Assess. 27:1484. doi: 10.1037/pas0000149

James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. Am. Anthropol. 109, 261–272. doi: 10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261

Jones, A. (2004). “Involving children and yong people as researchers,” in Doing Research with Children and Young People , eds S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, and C. Robinson, (London: Sage Publications), 113–130.

Kellett, M. (2010). Small shoes, Big Steps! Empowering children as active researchers. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 46, 195–203. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9324-y

La Fontaine, J. (1991). Bullying: The Child’s View – an Analysis of Telephone Calls to ChildLIne about Bullying. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Lambert, V., and Glacken, M. (2011). Engaging with children in research: theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs. Ethics 18, 781–801. doi: 10.1177/0969733011401122

Lee, C. (2006). Exploring teachers’ definitions of bullying. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 11, 61–75. doi: 10.1080/13632750500393342

Maunder, R. E., and Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggr. Violent Behav. 38, 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010

Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., and Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educ. Res. 52, 263–282. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.504062

Moore, S., and Maclean, R. (2012). Victimization, friendship and resilience: crossing the land in-between. Pastor. Care Educ. 30, 147–163. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.679956

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., and del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Rev. 6, 114–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x

Novick, R. M., and Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: the impact of students reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educ. Psychol. 30, 283–296. doi: 10.1080/01443410903573123

O’Brien, N. (2009). Secondary school teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying in the UK: a systematic review. Evid. Policy 5, 399–426.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

O’Brien, N. (2014). “I Didn’t Want to be Known as a Snitch”: Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private day and Boarding School. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition. Suffolk: University Campus Suffolk, 86–96.

O’Brien, N. (2016). To ‘Snitch’ or Not to ‘Snitch’? Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private Day and Boarding School. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700970/ (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N. (2017). An Exploratory Study of Bullied Young People’s Self-Exclusion from School. Evidence: Presented at Meetings of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying 2011-2016. Project Report. All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/702024 (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2007). So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research project with children and young people. Educ. Action Res. J. 15, 385–402. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514382

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2010). The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People’s Mental Health. Project Report. Chelmsford: Anglia Ruskin University.

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2013). Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: findings from a national cyberbullying project. Pastor. Care Educ. 31, 53–65. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.747553

O’Brien, N., Moules, T., and Munn-Giddings, C. (2018a). “Negotiating the research space between young people and adults in a PAR study exploring school bullying,” in Reciprocal Relationships and Well-Being: Implications for Social Work and Social Policy , eds M. Torronen, C. Munn-Giddings, and L. Tarkiainen, (Oxon: Routledge), 160–175. doi: 10.4324/9781315628363-11

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018b). The repercussions of reporting bullying: some experiences of students at an independent secondary school. Pastor. Care Educ. 36, 29–43. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2017.1422004

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018c). The Ethics of Involving Young People Directly in the Research Process. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition , 115–128. Available at: www.uos.ac.uk/content/centre-for-study-children-childhood (accessed May 2018).

Oliver, C., and Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’. Oxford Rev. Educ. 33, 71–86. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094594

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: facts and intervention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 196–200. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640

Ozer, E. J., and Wright, D. (2012). Beyond school spirit: the effects of youth-led participatory action research in two urban high schools. J. Res. Adolesc. 22, 267–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x

Parsons, S., Abbott, C., McKnight, L., and Davies, C. (2015). High risk yet invisible: conflicting narratives on social research involving children and young people, and the role of research ethics committees. Br. Educ. Res. J. 41, 709–729. doi: 10.1002/berj.3160

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., and Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse 18, 3–16. doi: 10.1177/1524838015588502

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Eur. Soc. Res. Council Methods Program. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Schott, R. M., and Sondergaard, D. M. (2014). “Introduction: new approaches to school bullying,” in School Bullying: New Theories in Context , eds R. M. Schott, and D. M. Sondergaard, (Massachusetts, MA: Cambridge University Press), 1–17.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., and Pereira, B. (2011). School bullying by one or more ways: does it matter and how do students cope? Sch. Psychol. Int. 32, 288–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402308

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., and Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Dev. 73, 1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Spears, B., Taddeo, C., Collin, P., Swist, T., Razzell, M., Borbone, V., et al. (2016). Safe and Well Online: Learnings from Four Social Marketing Campaigns for Youth Wellbeing. Available at: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36405/datastream/PDF/view (accessed July 1, 2019).

Stoudt, B. G. (2009). The role of language & discourse in the investigation of privilege: using participatory action research to discuss theory. Dev. Methodol. Interrupt. Power Urban Rev. 41, 7–28.

Thomson, P., and Gunter, H. (2008). Researching Bullying with students: a lens on everyday life in an ‘innovative school’. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 12, 185–200. doi: 10.1080/13603110600855713

Tisdall, E. K. M., and Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Child. Geogr. 10, 249–264. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2012.693376

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Available at: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PRESS2009 10web.pdf (accessed January 19, 2014).

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008). Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32, 486–495. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095553

Keywords : bullying, young people, participatory research, social constructionism, young people as researchers, collaboration, bullying supports

Citation: O’Brien N (2019) Understanding Alternative Bullying Perspectives Through Research Engagement With Young People. Front. Psychol. 10:1984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984

Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 13 August 2019; Published: 28 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 O’Brien. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Niamh O’Brien, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

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

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

• Publications
• Account settings

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

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Effects of Bullying Forms on Adolescent Mental Health and Protective Factors: A Global Cross-Regional Research Based on 65 Countries

1 School of Humanities and Law, Northeastern University, No. 195 Chuangxin Road, Hunnan District, Shenyang 110169, China; moc.kooltuo@uil_gnotaij

Jiatong Liu

Zengxin xue.

2 College of Economics and Management, Zhejiang Agriculture and Forestry University, No. 666 Wusu Road, Lin’an District, Hangzhou 310000, China; moc.kooltuo@euxnixgnez

Associated Data

The data are available online at https://www.cdc.gov/gshs/ (accessed on 10 December 2021).

Adolescent bullying is a public health issue of great global concern. Given the serious negative effect of bullying on adolescent mental health, it is critical to seek protective factors to protect adolescent mental health. From a global cross-regional perspective, the study aims to explore the relationship between forms of bullying and adolescent mental health and the role of parental support as a protective factor. Data were drawn from adolescents aged 12–17 years in 65 countries from the Global School-based Student Health Survey between 2003 and 2015. After controlling the state-fixed effects, individual adolescent behavior, and family factors, the ordinary least squares model was used to analyze the influence of bullying frequency and forms of bullying on adolescent mental health. The results found that the prevalence of bullying in the sample of 167,286 adolescents was 32.03%, with the highest prevalence of bullying in the sample countries in Africa. Verbal bullying had the highest prevalence and the most significant negative effect on adolescent mental health. The study also discussed the differences in bullying among adolescents by gender, age, and region. “Parental supervision”, “parental connectedness” and “parental bonding” played a positive and protective role in the mental health of adolescents who experienced bullying.

1. Introduction

Bullying is intentional and repeated aggressive behavior toward another person in which there is a real or perceived power imbalance, and the victim of bullying feels vulnerable and powerless to protect themselves [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Bullying includes physical assault, verbal abuse, and neglect [ 4 ]. Globally, bullying is widespread among adolescents. In a 2018 report by UNICEF, more than one-third of students aged 13–15 worldwide said they had experienced different forms of bullying [ 5 ]; data published by the World Health Organization in 2020 showed that more than 100 million children worldwide died each year from violence, including severe domestic violence as well as bullying [ 6 ]. In a survey involving 40 developing countries, the results showed that an average of 42% of boys and 37% of girls had experienced or were experiencing bullying [ 7 ].

Evidence from several longitudinal studies on the effects of bullying suggests that experiencing bullying, especially in adolescence, can severely impair a person’s physical, psychological, and social functioning, leading to risky behaviors [ 8 ], anxiety [ 9 ], depression [ 3 , 10 ], lower levels of academic achievement [ 11 , 12 ], suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-harm [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. At the same time, as a deliberate, repetitive act of aggression that occurs when there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim, the perpetrator repeats the bullying against the victim, and the repetition tilts the “balance” between the perpetrator and the victim, making it difficult for the victim to escape from the situation [ 2 , 4 ], thus having a lasting psychological effect on the victim [ 16 , 17 ]. This has a long-lasting effect on the victim’s psyche. Research has shown that the frequency of bullying is one of the factors that affect adolescent mental health. Adolescents are more likely to experience more severe depression when they are bullied more frequently [ 4 ], and some victims of bullying may even become perpetrators of bullying, harming peers or others [ 18 , 19 , 20 ].

In recent years, some studies have also begun to further explore the effects of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health, and found that the form of bullying is also an essential factor affecting adolescent mental health. The first was to explore what forms of bullying had a profounder effect on adolescent mental health, but most of the current studies by researchers on this issue have been conducted in individual countries or regions and have not reached uniform conclusions, e.g., Maunder et al. (2010) conducted a survey of students, teachers, and staff in four secondary schools in England, and a total of 1302 people participated in this survey, and the results found that physical bullying was the most harmful to students [ 21 ]; Chen et al. (2012) selected a middle school in Taiwan, China, and conducted two samples (605 students and 869 students) and found that relational bullying such as rumor spreading and cyberbullying were more harmful than physical and verbal bullying [ 22 ]; Thomas et al. (2016) selected 10,273 secondary school students in the first adolescent health survey conducted in 2009 in Victoria, Australia, and found that neglect had the strongest association with mental health among four forms of bullying (teased or called names, spread rumors, neglect and physical bullying) [ 4 ]. In a representative cross-sectional standardized survey conducted by Baier et al. (2018) in a federal state of Germany (10,638 students in the 9th grade), psychological cyberbullying was found to be the most important influence on the mental health of boys and girls, followed by relational bullying from peers or from teachers, and girls’ mental health was associated with sexual cyberbullying. There was no significant effect between physical bullying and mental health [ 23 ].

The second was to focus on the effect of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health under the gender group. For example, Turner et al. (2013) selected 1874 students from middle and high schools in North Carolina to explain the results of the effects of different forms of bullying (physical, verbal and cyber) on mental health (including depression and suicidal intention) and found that females had higher levels of depression after cyberbullying compared with males, and there was no significant difference in suicidal intent after either form of bullying for either males or females [ 24 ]. Shongwei et al. (2021) used the database of the 2013 Eswatini Global School-based Student Health Survey to examine gender differences in the effects of different forms of bullying on mental health in a sample of 2920 children aged 15–17 years, and found that both boys and girls felt lonely and feared re-victimization after being bullied [ 25 ]. Using data from U.S. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System in 2015, Kim et al. (2019) found that school bullying had a greater negative psychological effect on girls than on boys [ 26 ]. Wang et al. (2009) selected a sample of 7182 U.S. adolescents in grades 6 to 10 based on the 2005 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey, and found that boys were more likely to involve physical or verbal bullying and girls were more likely to be involved in relational bullying [ 27 ]. Very few studies have focused on the effects of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health according to age groups, and Yen et al. (2014) found that adolescents in middle school had more severe mental health problems after bullying than those in high school [ 28 ].

In addition to exploring the negative effects of bullying on adolescents, there were very few studies that analyze the role and effect of protective factors in preventing the occurrence of multiple forms of violence as positive actions to build resilience in children, in terms of protective factors [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]. For example, Biswas et al. (2020) used data from the Global School-based Student Health Survey to divide protective factors into parental support and peer support, and explored the effect of each on the mental health of adolescents following bullying [ 32 ].

Although some studies have been conducted on the effect of bullying on adolescent mental health, there are still the following research gaps: Firstly, for the global prevalence of adolescent bullying, the current studies are mostly limited to one country or a few regions [ 33 , 34 ], the findings are not consistent across countries, and there is a lack of cross-regional comparative studies. Secondly, in addition to focusing on the effect of bullying on the mental health of adolescents as a whole and different gender groups, there are not enough studies on the effect of bullying on the mental health of different adolescent subgroups. Adolescents are at a critical stage of development and the influence of age on their behaviors is crucial, but there is a lack of research discussing the effect of different forms of bullying on mental health according to age groups. Thirdly, current research has focused more on the risk factors of adolescent bullying and not enough on protective factors [ 31 , 35 , 36 ]. Therefore, to address these limitations, this study attempts to analyze the frequency of bullying, the prevalence of different forms of bullying, and the effects of both on adolescent mental health in 65 countries from a cross-regional comparative perspective, and to explore the differences in the effects of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health by gender and age groups in different regions. In addition, the study focused on parental support as a protective factor to examine the relationship between parental support and the mental health of adolescents who experienced bullying, and the mental health of adolescents who experienced different forms of bullying. The following were our hypotheses:

Forms of bullying would be associated with adolescents’ psychological well-being.

Forms of bullying would have significantly different effects on different genders and ages.

Parental support would play a moderating role in psychological well-being of adolescents who experienced bullying.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. data and sample.

Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS) is a World Health Organization international survey of adolescents that uses primarily standardized, self-administered questionnaires to make results comparable between countries. The core questionnaire looks at 10 domains of key factors affecting adolescent health, including tobacco use, alcohol abuse, drug use, diet, hygiene, physical activity, sexual behavior, violent behavior, and unintentional injuries, protective factors, and mental health. For the actual survey, the GSHS was approved by national governments and sponsored or organized by official agencies at the national level (usually by Ministry of Health or Education, and an institutional review board or ethical committee), using a school-class two-stage whole-group sampling method. Questionnaires were translated into the national language for student comprehension. After excluding the samples with missing data, countries covering the key variables of this study were selected, using the most recent data available for each country, and the final sample was drawn from survey data from 2003 to 2015, for a total of 167,286 samples from 65 countries, 5 regions (21,501 samples from Africa, 59,326 samples from Americas, 23,222 samples from Eastern Mediterranean, 13,301 samples from South East Asia, 49,936 samples from Western Pacific).

2.2. Ethics Statement

GSHS received ethics approval from each country. Written informed consent was obtained from participants or guardians prior to the survey, and privacy protections were obtained. The current study used publicly available data.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. dependent variable: mental health.

“Mental health”: Mental health was measured based on the two indicators of loneliness and anxiety in the questionnaire [ 37 ], with the questions “During the past 12 months, how often have you felt lonely / been so worried about something that you could not sleep at night?”. In order to visually explain the effect of bullying on adolescent mental health, this paper recoded the responses to the above measurement questions as “1 = always, 2 = most of the time, 3 = sometimes, 4 = rarely, 5 = never”. The current methods for comprehensive index measurement include subjective weighting method and objective weighting method. The subjective weighting method determines the weight based on the researcher’s subjective attention to the evaluation indicators, and the objective weighting method is based on the correlation between the indicators or indicators [ 38 ]. The degree of dispersion of information determines the weight. In order to eliminate the subjective arbitrariness of determining weights, following Huang’s research [ 39 ], this study chose the entropy method in the objective weighting method to determine the weights between the various indicators of the observed variable “mental health”, and used the information carried by the entropy value to calculate the “mental health”. According to the entropy method, the study determined the weight of each index as follows: there were N samples and M evaluation indexes, which were the value of the j-th index of the i-th sample.

Since the various indicators of sample mental health had different dimensions and orders of magnitude, the range standardized formula was used to process the indicators, and the absolute values of the indicators were converted into relative values to solve the homogeneity problem of various indicators, as shown below:

The formula following shows the standardized value of the j-th index of the i-th sample, the minimum and maximum value of the j-th index. In order to ensure the non-negativity of the calculation results, this study would shift the coordinates by 1 unit:

Finally, the standardized values were used to calculate the mental health “MH” of adolescents in the sample:

The formula above represents the entropy value of the j-th index, k = 1/In(n); n is the sample size, which is the weight of the j-th index of the i-th sample. Finally, the evaluation score of “mental health” was calculated as 1.02–9.89, and the higher the score, the better the mental health status.

2.3.2. Independent Variables: Frequency and Forms of Being Bullied

“Frequency of being bullied”: “Frequency of being bullied” was measured by the question “During the past 30 days, on how many days were you bullied?” and recoded (1 = 1 to 5 days, 2 = 6 to 19 days, 3 = more than 20 days). The larger value represented the higher frequency of being bullied.

“Forms of being bullied”: “Forms of being bullied” was measured by the question “During the past 30 days, how were you bullied most often?” and recoded (1 = physical bullying, 2 = verbal bullying, 3 = neglect).

2.3.3. Control Variables

Previous studies have reported that individual factors contributing to adolescent mental health, such as age, gender [ 40 ], substance use [ 26 , 41 ], weight status [ 42 ] and family socioeconomic status [ 43 ]. Therefore, the study used the following variables related to mental health of adolescents in GSHS as control variables, including age, gender, physical well-being, cigarette smoking, alcohol use, proxy of family socioeconomic status, number of close friends and frequency of missing school.

“Weight status” was measured by the value of body mass index (BMI), calculated with two adolescents’ indicators of height and weight, and recoded (1 = underweight, 2 = normal weight, 3 = overweight) [ 44 , 45 ]. “Cigarette smoking” and “alcohol use” were measured by the questions “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you smoke cigarettes / have at least drink containing alcohol?” and recoded (1 = less than 5 days, 2 = 6–19 days, 3= more than 20 days).

According to a prior study [ 14 ], “proxy of family socioeconomic status” was measured by the question “During the past 30 days, how often did you go hungry because there was not enough food in your home?” and recoded (1 represents “low”, 5 represents “high”). The larger value represented the higher family socioeconomic status.

“Number of close friends” was measured by the question “How many close friends do you have?” (0 = 0 friends, 1 = 1 friend, 2 = 2 friends, 3 = 3 or more friends). “Frequency of missing school” was measured by the question “During the past 30 days, on how many days did you miss classes or school without permission?” (1 = less than 2 days, 2 = 3–9 days, 3 = more than 10 days).

2.3.4. Protective Factors: Parental Supports

Protective factors were assessed by parental supports. As critical factors of resiliency, parental supports included parental supervision, parental connectedness and parental bonding [ 34 , 35 ], based on the questions “how often did your parents or guardians check to see if your homework was done?”, “how often did your parents or guardians understand your problems and worries?”, and “how often did your parents or guardians really know what you were doing with your free time?”, and assessed by frequency in the past 30 days (1 represents “never”, 5 represents “always”).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Firstly, the study conducted descriptive statistics on the overall prevalence of maltreatment and the prevalence of different forms of maltreatment among adolescents aged 12–17 years in 65 sample countries among five regions, and to visualize the differences in the distribution of bullying across regions, a global distribution of bullying rates among adolescents in the 65 sample countries was drawn. Secondly, an ordinary least squares model was used to analyze the effects of bullying frequency and different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health. In the model estimation, state-fixed effects were controlled for in addition to the effects of the above-mentioned control variables on adolescent mental health. The study further regressed subgroups by gender and age to estimate differences in the effects of bullying exposure, bullying frequency, and forms of bullying on adolescent mental health by gender and by age (under 15, over 15) across continents, respectively. The reason for choosing 15 years as the age group cut-off was that in most countries, adolescents under 15 years are at the middle school level and those over 15 years are at the high school level, where they show more significant differences in psychological and behavioral aspects [ 28 ]. Finally, the study conducted moderation test to explore the protective factors of adolescent bullying, i.e., whether parental support could play a significant positive role in the effect of bullying on adolescent mental health. The study used Stata 15.0 to analyze the data and ArcGIS software for mapping.

3.1. Sample Description

The descriptive statistics of the sample are shown in Table 1 . The mean age of the sample adolescents was 14.14 years (SD = 1.20), of which 46.74% were male (78,187) and 53.26% were female (89,099). In terms of bullying prevalence, 32.03% of the 167,286 overall samples of adolescents aged 12–17 years had experienced bullying in the past 30 days of the survey. Regarding the frequency of bullying, 24.68% of adolescents were bullied for less than five days, less than 10% of adolescents were bullied for more than five days.

Descriptive statistics of the sample (N = 167,286).

In terms of mental health, the mean of mental health of adolescents in the sample countries was 5.79 (SD = 1.82), which was in the middle to upper level. Among different regions, the mental health level of adolescents in South East Asia was the highest (M = 5.97, SD = 1.78), and African adolescents’ mental health level was the lowest (M = 5.47, SD = 1.92).

In terms of parental support, the mean values of “parental supervision”, “parental connectedness”, and “parental bonding” for the overall sample of adolescents were 2.94 (SD = 1.49), 3.00 (SD = 1.46), and 3.19 (SD = 1.44), respectively. The mean values of “parental supervision” ranged from “rarely” to “sometimes”, and the mean values of “parental connectedness” and “parental bonding” ranged from “sometimes” to “most of the time”.

3.2. Prevalence and Forms of Bullying across the Regions

Table 1 shows the prevalence of different forms of bullying in the six regions. Overall, verbal bullying had the highest prevalence (66.36%), followed by physical bullying (24.02%), and the neglect had the lowest prevalence (9.62%). Across regions, physical bullying was highest in Africa (28.98%) and lowest in the Americas (18.84%); verbal bullying was the opposite of physical bullying, highest in the Americas (71.09%) and lowest in Africa (61.75%); neglect was highest in South East Asia (11.10%) and lowest in Eastern Mediterranean (7.11%).

Table 2 and Figure 1 show specifically the prevalence of bullying and different forms of bullying in each sample country. In terms of bullying prevalence, the African region had the highest prevalence of adolescent bullying at 47.36%, followed by Eastern Mediterranean (41.53%), South East Asia (33.19%), Western Pacific (27.58%), and the Americas (26.23%). In terms of sample countries, 5 of the 12 sample countries in Africa had more than half of the bullying prevalence, namely, Botswana (52.20%), Ghana (56.72%), Kenya (54.35%), Zambia (61.58%), and Zimbabwe (59.15%). In Americas, the prevalence of bullying was ranging from 47.14% in Peru to 12.50% in Barbados. The Eastern Mediterranean region had the highest bullying rate in the Occupied Palestinian Territory with over half (52.27%) and the lowest bullying rate in Iraq (27.45%). South East Asia also had more than half of adolescents in Indonesia (50.14%) as its highest bullying rate, and the lowest adolescent bullying rate was in Myanmar (19.51%). Samoa, in the Western Pacific region, had the highest prevalence of bullying among all countries in the sample, at 72.40%, while Malaysia (16.99%) had the lowest prevalence of bullying among adolescents in the Western Pacific region.

Prevalence of frequency of being bullied and forms of bullying in 65 countries.

Prevalence and forms of bullying across regions (N = 167,286).

3.3. Effects of Bullying on Psychological Well-Being of Adolescents

After controlling for state-fixed effects, the study used OLS models to examine the effect of bullying and different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health, and the results are shown in Table 3 . In Model 1, with bullying frequency as the core explanatory variable, the regression results showed that bullying frequency negatively affected adolescent mental health, with the largest negative effect on mental health for adolescents who had been bullied for more than 20 days in the past 30 days, with a 7.53 decrease in mental health ( p < 0.001, CI: −7.72, −7.33). Model 2 further estimated the effects of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health, and the results showed that verbal bullying negatively affected adolescent mental health mostly, with a 9.64 decrease in mental health ( p < 0.001, CI: −9.89, −1.01). Physical and neglect also negatively affected adolescent mental health, with a 7.49 ( p < 0.001, CI: −7.89, −7.10) and a 1.21 ( p < 0.001, CI: −1.27, −1.15) decrease in mental health, respectively, which verified H1.

Effects of bullying on psychological well-being of adolescents (N = 167,286).

Note: *** p < 0.001.

3.4. Effects of Bullying on Psychological Well-Being in Adolescents of Different Gender

Table 4 demonstrates the effects of bullying frequency and bullying form on the mental health of adolescents by gender. Overall, both bullying frequency and bullying form had a significant negative effect on both male and female adolescents in the sample across continents ( p < 0.001). In the total sample, the negative effect of bullying frequency on the mental health of female adolescents was more significant than that of males ( p < 0.001). Specifically, the negative effect of bullying frequency on the mental health of female adolescents was greater than that of males in the sample countries of the Eastern Mediterranean region, the South East Asian region, and the Western Pacific region; the negative effect of bullying frequency on males was greater when the bullying frequency was less than 19 days in the sample countries of the American region ( p < 0.001).

Effects of bullying on psychological well-being in adolescents of different gender (N = 167,286).

Looking at the different forms of bullying, verbal bullying and neglect had a greater negative effect on overall female adolescents than on males, while physical bullying had a greater negative effect on overall male adolescents, supporting partial of H2. Across continents, all three forms of bullying had a significant negative effect on the mental health of male adolescents in Africa compared with females ( p < 0.001); in the Americas, physical bullying had a greater negative effect on the mental health of male adolescents than females ( p < 0.001), neglect had a greater negative effect on the mental health of female adolescents than males, and verbal bullying did not differ between the two sexes; in the Eastern Mediterranean region, physical bullying and verbal bullying had a greater negative effect on females than males ( p < 0.001), and neglect had a more severe negative effect on males; in South East Asia, both physical bullying and verbal bullying had a more severe negative effect on females ( p < 0.001), and neglect had a more severe negative effect on males ( p < 0.001); in the Western Pacific, physical bullying and neglect had a more severe negative effect on female mental health, and verbal bullying had a more severe negative effect on male mental health.

3.5. Effects of Bullying on Psychological Well-Being in Adolescents of Different Ages

Table 5 demonstrates the effects of bullying and different forms of bullying on the mental health of adolescents of different ages across continents and their variability. In terms of bullying frequency, bullying frequency had a greater negative effect on the overall mental health of adolescents under the age of 15 than adolescents over the age of 15 ( p < 0.001). In terms of forms of bullying, physical bullying, verbal bullying and neglect had a greater negative effect on the mental health of adolescents under 15 years old than adolescents over 15 years old in the total sample ( p < 0.001) as hypothesized. Among the regions, the negative effect of neglect on the mental health of adolescents over the age of 15 was more significant in the sample countries of the Western Pacific region ( p < 0.001), and the negative effect of physical bullying and verbal bullying on the mental health of adolescents under the age of 15 was more significant ( p < 0.001); the situation in the other regions was consistent with that of the overall sample.

Effects of bullying on psychological well-being in adolescents of different ages (N = 167,286).

Note: * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.

3.6. The Protective Effect of Parental Support on the Psychological Well-Being

To test the potential moderating role of parental support as a protective factor on adolescent mental health after bullying, the study conducted the procedure to test significant interactions. The results from Table 6 show that being bullied was negatively associated with mental health in three models ( p < 0.001). Significant interaction effects between parental supervision and being bullied ( p < 0.001), between parental connectedness and being bullied ( p < 0.001), between parental bonding and being bullied ( p < 0.001) were found to be positively associated with psychological well-being, indicating that the moderating effect of parental support occurred in the protection of mental health of adolescents who experienced being bullied as H3 hypothesized.

Tested moderation models with psychological well-being as outcomes predicted by being bullied, parental support and multiplicative interaction terms (N = 167,286).

Table 7 shows the results of the effect of parental support on the mental health of adolescents following different forms of bullying. Among them, “parental connectedness” had a positive protective effect on the mental health of adolescents after verbal bullying or peer neglect, i.e., the more parents understand the adolescents’ distress after verbal bullying or neglect at school, the higher the level of mental health of the adolescents, and the frequency of parental understanding increases by one unit, the level of mental health increased by 8.71 units ( p < 0.001) and 1.05 units ( p < 0.001), respectively; “parental bonding” had a positive restorative effect on the psychological health of adolescents who were verbally bullied, i.e., for each unit increase in the frequency of “parental bonding”, the psychological health level of adolescents who were verbally bullied increased by 2.47 units ( p < 0.05).

Association of protective effect of parental support with psychological well-being by forms of being bullied (N = 167,286).

Note: * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

The study examined the overall prevalence of bullying among adolescents and the prevalence of different forms of bullying in a total of 167,286 sample in five regions, and further analyzed the effect of different forms of bullying on adolescent mental health, the protective role of parental support, and the main findings were as follows:

Firstly, adolescent bullying cannot be ignored, with the highest prevalence of verbal bullying. Our study showed that the overall prevalence of bullying among adolescents in the 167,286 sample countries was 32.03%, a result that was consistent with the previous UNICEF report published in 2018 that more than one-third of students aged 13–15 worldwide experienced bullying. The results of Biswas et al. (2020) and Elgar et al. (2015) cross-regional comparative studies on bullying and violence among adolescents were generally consistent with the results of the two studies on the prevalence of bullying among adolescents, which were 31% [ 32 ] and 30% [ 8 ], respectively. From the results of the cross-regional comparison, the highest prevalence of bullying among adolescents (47.36%) was found in the sample countries in the African region, which may be related to the low-income level, poorer schools, and social environment, war, and riots in the African region [ 46 ]. In terms of the prevalence of different forms of bullying, verbal bullying had the highest prevalence (66.36%), followed by physical bullying (24.02%), and neglect had the lowest prevalence (9.62%). The results of a survey conducted by Scheithauer et al. (2006) in Germany with students in grades 5–10 [ 47 ], and the results of the prevalence of six forms of bullying among 2667 Italian secondary school students, obtained by Vieno et al. in 2011 using the results of the Health Behavior in School-aged Children Survey database, also both showed the highest prevalence of verbal bullying, consistent with the findings of this paper [ 48 ]. This suggested that verbal bullying, which takes the form of making fun of a peer’s race, nationality, color, creed, body, and appearance, was the most prevalent and most likely to occur among adolescents because it was the most recognizable and less costly to occur. However, it was worth pointing out that the findings for the prevalence of physical bullying and neglect in this study differ slightly from those of the two studies mentioned above, due to the different criteria used to measure them.

Secondly, compared with physical bullying and neglect, verbal bullying had the most serious negative effect on adolescent mental health. Not only did verbal bullying had the highest prevalence of the three forms of bullying, but it also had the most serious negative effect on adolescent mental health for two main reasons: firstly, verbal bullying occurred most frequently, and according to the study, the frequency of bullying significantly and negatively affects adolescent mental health, so the lower the level of mental health when adolescents suffered frequent ridicule or name-calling from peers; secondly, from the perspective of social identity theory, this highly discriminatory ridicule led to negative mental health outcomes, especially for adolescents with extremely strong identity, and this discrimination increased their psychological distress [ 49 ].

Thirdly, overall, the frequency of bullying had a greater negative effect on the mental health of female adolescents compared with male adolescents, which was consistent with the findings of a recent study conducted in the United States that school bullying had a greater effect on psychological depression in females than in males [ 26 ]. In addition, physical bullying had a greater negative effect on the mental health of male adolescents, and verbal bullying and neglect had a greater negative effect on the mental health of female adolescents. This was generally consistent with previous research finding that depressive symptoms were more pronounced after active forms of bullying (i.e., physical bullying) in boys and after passive forms of bullying (i.e., verbal and relational bullying) in girls [ 28 , 50 ]. This would require further exploration of the effect of different forms of bullying on the mental health of male and female adolescents in specific regions. While we need to protect boys and girls equally from bullying, countries also need to consider the gender differences in the occurrence and effect of different forms of bullying in their countries and pay targeted attention to adolescents who are victims of bullying.

Fourth, the frequency of bullying had a more significant negative effect on the mental health of adolescents under the age of 15, and different forms of bullying also had a more significant negative effect on the mental health of adolescents under the age of 15. Previous studies have found that the odds of bullying are higher for younger adolescents (under 15) [ 25 , 51 ]. Compared with younger adolescents, older adolescents (15 years and older) were more aware of self-concept and self-regulation in terms of self-perception and psychological construction [ 49 ], so both the frequency of bullying and the different forms of bullying had a more significant negative effect on the mental health of adolescents under the age of 15. In addition, the study showed regional differences in mental health of adolescents in different age groups after various forms of bullying, which provided a basis for the development and implementation of intervention policies in each region or country.

Finally, in terms of protective factors, “parental supervision”, “parental connectedness” and “parental bonding” played positive roles in the relationship between bullying and adolescent mental health. Positive relationships, especially positive family relationships that provided intimacy, support, trust, emotional comfort, and a sense of belonging, are one of the key elements of resiliency [ 52 ]. In such a family environment, even if adolescents were abused and bullied, they could still buffer the stress and shock from other aspects by increasing their self-efficacy, self-worth, and emotional belongingness [ 53 ]. “Parental connectedness” and “parental bonding” were important indicators of parent–child intimacy and emotional comfort, and played a positive role in adolescents’ resilience. However, there were no consistent conclusions to the role of “parental supervision”. Some studies have not found a significant link between parental supervision and mental health after bullying [ 54 , 55 ]. Others have identified the lack of parental supervision as a risk factor to adolescents’ mental health development [ 56 ], which is consistent with the current study. Future research would explore how the degree or the forms of parental supervision influence mental health when adolescents experience bullying.

Limited by the consistency of the GSHS database, this study suffered from the following shortcomings: Firstly, the countries or regions selected represent only some of the five regions. We did not contain the European continent because only one country provided useful data. Future studies would include more specific countries to explore the global adolescent bullying situation. Secondly, the GSHS used a self-administered questionnaire, and although self-administration was an acceptable way to collect data on adolescent bullying victimization, there was a limitation of possible shared method variance. Finally, we observed significant regional differences in the prevalence of different forms of bullying, including gender differences and age differences, and future research would consider social context and cultural heterogeneity to explain regional differences better and provide more possibilities for countries to implement adolescent bullying intervention programs.

5. Conclusions

Despite these limitations, our study contributed to the exploration of adolescent bullying in the following ways: firstly, unlike previous studies limited to individual countries or regions, our analysis covered 65 sample countries across five continents, providing more evidence for cross-regional comparative studies of adolescent bullying; secondly, in addition to focusing on bullying among adolescents as a whole and its effect on mental health, we focused on intergroup differences in adolescent subgroups (gender groups and age groups) to provide a basis for targeted development of specific intervention policies for different groups of adolescents. Finally, we focused on the potential protective factors of adolescent bullying and found that “parental supervision”, “parental connectedness” and “parental bonding” played a positive role in protecting the psychological health of adolescents who were bullied. The above findings suggested that, as a global public health problem, adolescent bullying should attract sufficient policy concern and practical intervention, and further establish a comprehensive adolescent social protection mechanism and protection system including family, school, and community.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank children and their families who participated in the GSHS. The authors would like to thank World Health Organization for providing the datasets and codebook for data analysis of GSHS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.M.; methodology, X.M. and J.L.; software, Z.X. and J.L.; validation, X.M., J.L. and Z.X.; formal analysis, X.M., J.L. and Z.X.; data curation, Z.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.M. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, X.M., J.L. and Z.X.; visualization, X.M., J.L. and Z.X.; supervision, X.M.; project administration, X.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by Social Science Planning Fund of Liaoning Province (Grant Number: L20BGL004) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities supported by Ministry of Education of China (Grant Number: N2114001).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov

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

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

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

Research Resources

Stopbullying.gov resources include Fact Sheets , Research Summaries , and Infographics that provide current research findings, evidence-based strategies, and data on bullying prevention. The resources can be utilized for bullying prevention by youth, parents, educators, youth-serving professionals, schools, health care providers, organizations, communities, and states.  The resources can be shared, downloaded, and printed for distribution.  

Bullying Research Paper

This sample bullying research paper features: 4600 words (approx. 15 pages), an outline, and a bibliography with 28 sources. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Introduction

Bullying defined.

• National Variation
• The Importance of Age

Stability of Bullying Roles

• Gender Differences

The Bully-Victim

The peer group, parenting and home environment, sibling relationships, school factors, internalizing problems, academic performance, delinquency and criminality, impact beyond victims.

• Interventions

Future Directions and Conclusion

• Bibliography

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code, more bullying research papers:.

• Bullying Prevention Research Paper
• Bullying and Crime Research Paper
• Bullying in School Research Paper

Bullying has received worldwide attention in the last 30 years as a form of aggressive behavior that can have a significant negative impact on the physical, emotional, and academic development of victims. The first major contribution to the academic study of bullying was made by Dan Olweus, who wrote the first scholarly book in English to deal with bullying. The book was written in response to the suicide of three bullied boys in Norway and reported a high prevalence of school bullying (20 % of Norwegian children reported having some involvement) as well as discussed the success of the world’s first bullying prevention program (Olweus 1993). Olweus’ work opened the way for an explosion of research on bullying, which expanded from an initial interest in schools to include broader contexts such as the workplace, prisons, and sibling relationships. While much of this work is of interest, showing that bullying has the potential to affect a significant proportion of the population, this review focuses on school bullying, as this is the area that has attracted the most research interest to date.

The international literature is repleted with definitions of school bullying, most of which seem to accept that bullying is any type of negative action intended to cause distress or harm that is repeated and targeted against individuals who cannot defend themselves. When research on bullying started in the 1980s, bullying was perceived to comprise only episodes of physical or verbal aggression where the victim was physically attacked or called names. In recent years, the definition of bullying has broadened to include other forms of aggression that are relational in nature and aim to damage the victim’s peer relationships and their social status such as spreading of malicious gossip and social exclusion. Fighting between people of approximately equal strength, a one-time attack, or a good-natured teasing and play fighting are not counted as bullying.

The advent and widespread use of electronic means of communication such as mobile phones and the Internet has made it easier to bully anonymously, through the use of pseudonyms and temporary accounts, at any time and in any place involving a wide audience. This development has meant that the definition of bullying has had to be expanded to account for what the literature refers to as “cyber-bullying” or “electronic bullying.” A nationally representative survey of 7,508 adolescents in the United States in 2005 found that 8.3 % had bullied others and 9.8 % had been bullied electronically at least once in the last 2 months (Wang et al. 2009). In the same year in England and Wales, a survey of pupils aged 11–16 found that 22 % had been cyber-bullied at least once or twice in the last couple months (Smith et al. 2008). The most common form of cyber-bullying internationally is sending threatening and/or nasty text messages.

Bullying Prevalence and Continuity

National variation in bullying.

There are large variations across countries in the prevalence of bullying perpetration and victimization. In an international survey of health-related symptoms among school-aged children, the percentage of students who reported being frequently bullied during the current term ranged from a low of 5 % to 10 % in some countries to a high of 40 % in others (Due et al. 2005). The prevalence of bullies in primary school ranges, in most countries, between 7 % and 12 % and remains at those levels in secondary school (around 10 %). It is unclear whether these differences in prevalence reflect genuinely different levels of engagement in bullying among countries or, at least partly, result from different meanings of the term “bullying” in different countries and differences in methodologies and samples used.

An example of why valid comparisons between countries are not possible is Portugal where the bullying rate is high compared to other countries. Berger (2007) in her analysis found that one detail of educational policy in Portugal may account, among other things, for this higher rate of bullying. In Portuguese schools, children are asked to repeat sixth grade unless they pass a rigorous test. This practice results in at least 10 % of all sixth graders (more often boys) to be held back 2 years or more, and these older, bigger children are almost twice as likely to bully compared to the class average. This suggests that the difference in prevalence rates between countries may be, at least partly, accounted for by external factors including national differences in school policies and environments but also differences in the methodologies used (self-reports vs. peer and/or teacher reports), students’ differing levels of cognitive ability, cultural differences in reporting, and different meanings of the term “bullying” in different countries.

The Importance of Age in Bullying

Despite variations in prevalence, it is a universal finding that bullying victimization is more frequent among younger children and steadily declines with age. A range of explanations have been put forward to explain these age differences (Smith et al. 1999a, b). Compared to older children, younger children are less likely to have developed the appropriate skills and coping strategies to deal effectively with bullies and avert further victimization. Younger children are also less likely to refrain from bullying others due to socialization pressure. Finally, there is evidence that younger students adopt a more inclusive definition of bullying when responding to prevalence surveys, and this may, at least partly, account for the higher reported frequency of bullying victimization in primary school. For example, younger pupils might find it more difficult to distinguish between bullying and fighting, broadening the use of the term bullying to include aggressive behaviors that involve no imbalance of power. Within the general trend of decreasing bullying victimization over time, researchers have observed an abrupt increase in bullying during the transition from primary to secondary school which may reflect some students’ attempts to establish dominance hierarchies in the new school environment. Relational forms of bullying take precedence over physical modes of attack as children grow older and their social skills improve.

There is some controversy in the literature as to the stability of bullying victimization in primary school. Some studies have reported that bullying victimization is relatively stable over a period of up to 4 years in primary school and often continues in secondary school. Other studies have found that only a relatively small proportion of children (around 4–5 %) are victimized repeatedly over time in primary school.

In secondary school, the stability of both bully and victim roles is considerably higher than in primary school according to teacher, peer, and self-reports. It is estimated that two out of three male bullies remain in their role over a 1-year period. Despite the moderate to high stability of the victim and bully roles in secondary school, prevalence rates are lower than in primary school. This suggests that a small number of victims are targeted consistently and systematically in secondary school.

Stability in bullying victimization has been explained in two ways. Firstly, it has been observed that victims select social environments that reinforce the risk of victimization, for example, they are more likely to have friends who are less accepted by the peer group and often victimized themselves. Secondly, victims often lack the social skills to break through in new environments, and this increases the risk that they are labeled as victims and locked in that role over a long period of time. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that although for some children bullying victimization will be situational, for others it will develop into a trait.

Gender Differences in Bullying

The view that males are more likely to bully and be bullied than females has been dismissed in recent years following a better understanding about the different forms aggressive behavior such as bullying can take. Although males are more likely to engage in physical forms of bullying such as pushing and hitting, females are, according to some studies, more adept at employing relational forms of aggression (e.g., social exclusion, spreading of nasty rumors) against their victims especially during adolescence. No consistent gender differences have been identified in the use of verbal bullying (e.g., calling names, nasty teasing). This suggests that overall gender differences are not as pronounced as originally thought and that bullying is not a male problem.

Characteristics of Children and Adolescents Involved in Bullying

There is some controversy in the literature about the profile of bullies. Initially, studies described children who bullied others as insecure, anxious individuals who have low self-esteem, are unpopular among their classmates, and use aggressive strategies to resolve conflicts. This stereotype was later disputed by research that suggested bullies are socially competent and have superior theory of mind skills (i.e., awareness of others’ mental functions and states) and good levels of social intelligence, knowing how to attain goals without damaging their reputation. Linked to this, there is also debate concerning whether bullies lack empathic skills. Some research suggests that bullies understand the emotions of others but do not share them. The inconsistencies across studies may be, at least partly, due to different definitions of bully status and different methodologies employed. Studies which have distinguished between “pure” bullies and bully/victims have revealed that “pure” bullies have few conduct problems, perform well at school, are popular among their classmates, and do not suffer from physical and psychosomatic health problems.

There is more consensus on the profile of “pure” victims. Research has identified that “pure” victims exhibit elevated levels of depression and anxiety, low self-esteem, and poor social skills. Hawker and Boulton’s (2000) meta-analysis found that peer victimization is more strongly concurrently associated with depression than with anxiety, loneliness, or self-esteem. Another meta-analysis by Card (2003) found that the strongest correlates of the victimization experience are low self-concept, low physical strength, low school enjoyment, poor social skills, and high internalizing and externalizing problems. It was unclear from these reviews of cross-sectional studies, however, whether internalizing problems lead to victimization or vice versa.

The recent body of longitudinal research on bullying and peer victimization more widely suggests that the relationship between internalizing problems such as depression, anxiety and loneliness, and victimization is more likely to be reciprocal, that is, internalizing problems contribute to victimization and vice versa. A metaanalysis of 18 longitudinal studies examining associations between peer victimization and internalizing problems in children and adolescents concluded that internalizing problems both precede and follow peer victimization experiences (Reijntjes et al. 2011). It is worth noting, however, that the path from psychological maladjustment to victimization has not been replicated in all studies. For instance, Bond et al. (2001) found no support for the hypothesis that emotional maladjustment invites victimization.

Recent work suggests that bullying might arise out of early cognitive deficits, including language problems, imperfect causal understanding, and poor inhibitory control that lead to decreased competence with peers, which over time develops into bullying. Research does not support the assertion that physical appearance (e.g., wearing glasses) is a risk factor for being bullied at school. The only physical characteristic that has been associated with an increased risk of victimization is low physical size and strength. There is less evidence on how equality characteristics influence victimization. There is no consistently robust evidence to suggest that ethnic minority children are more at risk of being bullied at school. Sexual orientation has rarely been investigated in longitudinal studies as a possible risk factor of bullying victimization, but there is some, mainly qualitative, evidence of sexual minorities being targeted in secondary schools. There is stronger evidence that children with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to victimization in mainstream settings, although it might be other characteristics of disabled children that make them more vulnerable to victimization such as lack of friends rather than the disability per se.

Olweus (1993) was the first researcher to identify a small proportion of victims of bullying that he called “provocative victims” or “bully-victims,” who bully other children as well as being bullied by them. Research has identified that bully-victims are the most troubled group among children and adolescents involved in bullying incidents. This group displays the highest levels of internalizing problems, including depression, anxiety, low selfesteem, and loneliness. At the same time, they score high on externalizing problems such as aggression, impulsivity, hyperactivity, and conduct problems. Other research has shown that bully-victims display higher levels of neuroticism and psychoticism than either bullies or victims. Bully-victims use aggressive strategies to cope with stressors at school that increase the risk of further victimization and rejection from peers.

Besides the traditional roles of bully, victim, and bully-victim, research has identified that all students take on a role when bullying episodes emerge. Salmivalli et al. (1996) distinguished between six different roles children can take in bullying situations: the bully (leader), the reinforcer (encourages and provides audience), the assistant (follower/helper, e.g., holds the child down), the defender (helps the victim and/or tells bullies to stop), the outsider (stays away from bullying situations), and the victim. Subsequent research established that the three roles of bully, reinforcer, and assistant are closely correlated with each other and, therefore, cannot usefully discriminate between children. In kindergarten, the three most commonly held roles are those of the bully, the victim, and the defender. Fewer students are defenders by middle school, and the majority becomes witnesses or bystanders when bullying takes place. Such passive behavior, although not directly encouraging of bullying, provides a permissive context for bullies that allows them to continue harassing their victims.

Environmental Influences on Bullying

There is clear evidence that parenting styles are related to bullying behavior. Studies indicate that bullies are more likely to have parents who are authoritarian and punitive, disagree more often, and are less supportive. The parents of bullies are more likely to have been bullies themselves when they were young. Victims, on the other hand, are more likely to have been reared in an overprotective family environment. Bully-victims tend to come from family backgrounds that are exposed to abuse and violence and favor the use of harsh, punitive, and restrictive discipline practices. This group reports little positive warmth in their families and more difficulties in communicating with parents.

Family characteristics are related to bullying victimization in different ways for boys and girls. Boys are more prone to victimization when the father is highly critical or absent in his relationship with his son, thus failing to provide a satisfactory role model. Victimization in boys is also associated with maternal overprotectiveness which may hinder boys’ search for autonomy and independence, whereas victimization in girls is more strongly related to maternal hostility which may lead to anxiety and decreased sense of connectedness in relationships.

Very little research has examined longitudinal associations between early home environment and subsequent bullying behavior. The few studies that exist suggest a link between low emotional support and subsequent bullying behavior at school. Parents who are disagreeable, hostile, cold, or rejecting tend to have children who are at risk of becoming aggressive in the future. In a small longitudinal study, Schwartz et al. (1997) found that bully-victims at 10 years were significantly more likely than the other groups to have had experiences with harsh, disorganized, and potentially abusive home environments 5 years earlier. Mother-child interactions at 5 years were characterized by hostile, restrictive, or overly punitive parenting. They were significantly exposed to higher levels of marital conflicts and more likely to come from marginally lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Bullies were found to be exposed to adult aggression and conflicts, but not victimization by adults, and were from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. These findings need to be replicated in larger samples before any safe conclusions can be drawn.

More recently, there has been interest in how sibling relationships affect the development of bullying behavior. There is international evidence that children who are victimized at school are more likely, compared to other groups, to be victimized by their siblings at home. Wolke and Samara (2004) found that more than half of victims of bullying by siblings (50.7 %) were also involved in bullying behavior at school compared to only 12.4 % of those not victimized by siblings, indicating a strong link between intrafamilial and extrafamilial peer relationships. Those who were both victimized at home and at school had the highest behavior problems and were the least prosocial. Similar evidence exists in relation to bullying perpetration, suggesting that those who bully at school tend to exhibit similar behaviors towards their siblings at home.

A number of school factors have also been implicated as correlates of bullying behavior. One of the most consistent findings in the international literature is that the number and quality of friends at school is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, protective factor against bullying victimization. Having friends is not sufficient in itself to protect against victimization. For instance, when at-risk children have friends with internalizing problems, who are physically weak or who themselves are victimized, the relation of children’s behavioral risk to victimization is exacerbated.

More recent work on the role of class structure and climate on bullying has shown that variations in peer structure and dominance hierarchies influence the stability of bullying victimization. For example, victims in primary school classes with a more pronounced hierarchical structure are less likely to escape their victim role compared to those in classes with less clearly marked hierarchies (Sch€afer et al. 2005).

Consequences of Bullying

There has been a growing interest in recent years to investigate the long-term effects of bullying involvement on children’s and adolescents’ social, emotional, behavioral, and academic development using longitudinal samples. The results of these studies suggest that victims and bully-victims manifest more adjustment problems than bullies. Victims and, especially, bully-victims are more likely to show elevated levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness; perform less well academically; and display conduct problems. The only negative long-term outcome that has consistently been reported in the literature for bullies is their involvement in later offending. There is also some initial evidence that bullying perpetration is a significant risk factor of poor academic performance.

Several cross-sectional studies have demonstrated negative associations between peer victimization and a range of internalizing problems, including loneliness and low self-esteem. A meta-analysis of 23 cross-sectional studies of the association between peer victimization and psychological maladjustment found that peer victimization was more strongly concurrently associated with depression than with anxiety, loneliness, or self-esteem (Hawker and Boulton 2000).

Over the last decade, research on bullying is increasingly reliant on longitudinal methodologies to disentangle whether victimization contributes to internalizing problems or vice versa. It has been argued, for example, that children who display internalizing behaviors (e.g., anxiety or shyness) are more at risk of being targeted by peers due to their inability to cope effectively with provocation. The majority of longitudinal studies investigating associations between peer victimization and psychological maladjustment have found evidence for both directions.

There is some longitudinal evidence that bullying involvement has a negative impact on academic performance, although more studies are needed to reach a definitive conclusion. A US longitudinal study that began in 2002 with a sample of about 1,700 adolescents found that being a bully had a stronger negative effect on self-perceived academic competence over time than being a victim after controlling for demographic background variables and baseline academic competence (Ma et al. 2009). Furthermore, only bully status predicted lower self-reported grades.

Despite showing fewer adjustment problems than victims and bully-victims, bullies are at an increased risk of later delinquency and criminal offending. A recent meta-analysis of studies measuring school bullying and later offending found that school bullies were 2.5 times more likely than noninvolved students to engage in offending over an 11-year follow-up period (Ttofi et al. 2011). The risk was lower when major childhood risk factors were controlled for, but remained statistically significant. The effect of bullying on later offending was especially pronounced when bullying was assessed in older children. The longitudinal association between bullying perpetration and later offending has been replicated in many countries, including Australia, Canada, and Europe.

Finally, there is evidence that bullying and victimization have a negative impact not only on the individual children involved but also on bystanders. Children who witness bullying incidents report increased anxiety, less satisfaction with school, and lower academic achievement. There is also evidence that in school classes where a lot of victimization is taking place, school satisfaction among students is low.

Bullying Interventions

Following the development of the first anti-bullying program by Dan Olweus in Norway in the 1980s, a considerable number of anti-bullying interventions have flourished around the world to reduce bullying behaviors and protect victims. These fall under four broad categories: curriculum interventions generally designed to promote an anti-bullying attitude within the classroom; whole-school programs that intervene on the school, class, and individual level and address bullying as a systemic problem; social and behavioral skills training; and peer support programs including befriending and peer mediation. A systematic review conducted in 2004 evaluated the strength of scientific evidence in support of anti-bullying programs (Vreeman and Carroll 2007). The review concluded that only a small number of anti-bullying programs have been evaluated rigorously enough to permit strong conclusions about their effectiveness.

Whole-school interventions were found to be more effective in reducing victimization and bullying than interventions that focused only on curriculum changes or social and behavioral skills training. Targeting the whole school involves actions to improve the supervision of the playground, having regular meetings between parents and teachers, setting clear guidelines for dealing with bullying, and using role-playing and other techniques to teach students about bullying. The success of whole-school interventions, relative to other stand-alone approaches, supports the view that bullying is a systemic, sociocultural phenomenon derived from factors operating at the individual, class, school, family, and community level. Hence, interventions that target only one level are unlikely to have a significant impact.

A more recent systematic review of school-based anti-bullying programs found that, overall, these programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization by an average of 20–23 % and 17–20 %, respectively (Farrington and Ttofi 2009). The interventions that were found to be most effective were those that incorporated parent training/meetings, disciplinary methods, and videos; targeted older children; and were delivered intensively and for longer. There is less robust evidence on the effectiveness of peer support programs that include activities such as befriending, peer counseling, conflict resolution, or mediation, and a systematic review suggested their use may lead to increases in bullying victimization.

More recently, there has been a growing interest in the use of virtual learning environments to reduce bullying at schools. The basic feature of these programs is a computer-based environment that creates a highly believable learning experience for children who find themselves “present” in the situation that causes emotional distress and, as a result, learn experientially how to deal with school problems. An example of such a program is “FearNot,” an intervention that was developed to help victims of bullying explore the success or otherwise of different coping strategies to dealing with bullying victimization through interactions with “virtual” victims of school bullying. The evaluation of this intervention found that the victims that received the intervention were more likely to escape victimization in the short term than victims in control schools who did not interact with the software (Sapouna et al. 2010). These results suggest that the use of virtual environments might be an engaging and useful component of whole-school anti-bullying policies that merits further testing. A key finding that emerged from this research is that interventions are more likely to be successful if they have the support of teachers and other school personnel and there is a strong commitment to reduce bullying in the school community. This is considered to be one of the reasons behind the huge success of the Olweus’ prevention program that has not been replicated to date.

Although an abundance of knowledge has emerged in recent years regarding the correlates of bullying behavior, there is still relatively little known about the causal processes and mechanisms associated with the bully and victim status. Longitudinal studies, which track bullies and victims over time, offer one of the best chances of disentangling the antecedents of bullying perpetration and victimization from its consequences, and these should form a key part of future research in this field. Another approach which shows much promise is the cutting-edge attempt to unravel the causes of bullying behavior made by researchers investigating biological and environmental influences and the way these influences interact.

One of these studies, involving 1,116 families with 10-year-old twins, found that the tendency for children to be bullied was largely explained by genetics (73 % of variance) and less so by environmental factors that were unique to each child (Ball et al. 2008). Another study of 506 six-year-old twins found that variance in victimization was accounted for only by shared and non-shared environmental influences (29 % and 71 %, respectively) and was not related to the child’s genetic predisposition (Brendgen et al. 2008). These discrepancies might be explained by differences in methodologies used, as studies drew on different informants to assess bullying victimization (mothers and peers, respectively). Although results to date have been contradictory, future breakthroughs in this area have the potential to transform radically the study of bullying.

To understand more fully how bullying behaviors develop, future research will also need to investigate in more depth how individual and classroom level factors interact to cause involvement in bullying. It is not currently understood whether the relationship between risk factors and bullying is the same across different school and class environments or the extent to which consequences of bullying and victimization are dependent on class-and school-level factors.

Finally, another area that would benefit from more attention is the investigation of resilience to bullying. Some initial evidence suggests that maternal warmth has an environmental effect in protecting children from negative outcomes associated with victimization (Bowes et al. 2010). However, we still know relatively little about the factors that promote resilience to bullying and victimization among at-risk children, and also what role bullying has to play in increasing resilience. We also know little about the factors that help victims cope better with the effects of victimization.

To conclude, what the recent flurry of research activity has highlighted is how complex the bullying phenomenon is and that, although much has been learned to date, there is clearly a great need to understand how variables describing the family, school, class, and community environment interact with individual characteristics to determine who gets bullied and who bullies others. Research should neither be blind to nor discouraged by these complexities.

Bibliography:

• Ball HA, Arseneault L, Taylor A, Maughan B, Caspi A, Moffitt TE (2008) Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully-victims in childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49(1):104–112
• Berger Stassen K (2007) Update on bullying at school: science forgotten? Dev Rev 21:90–126
• Bond L, Carlin J, Thomas L, Rubin K, Patton G (2001) Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. Br Med J 323:480–484
• Bowes L, Maughan B, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Arseneault L (2010) Families promote emotional and behavioral resilience to bullying: evidence of an environmental effect. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 51(7):809–817
• Brendgen M, Boivin M, Vitaro F, Girard A, Dionne G, Perusse D (2008) Dev Psychopathol 20(2):455–471
• Card N (2003) Victims of peer aggression: a meta-analytic review. Presented at the biennial meeting of the society for research on child development, Tampa, 24–27 Apr 2003
• Due P, Holstein BE, Lynch J, Diderichsen F, Gabhain SN, Scheidt P, Currie C, Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Bullying Working Group (2005) Bullying and symptoms among school-aged children: international comparative cross-sectional study in 28 countries. Eur J Pub Health 15:128–132
• Espelage DL, Swearer SM (2003) Bullying in American schools: a social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
• Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2009) School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization. Campbell Syst Rev 2009:6
• Hawker D, Boulton M (2000) Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. J Child Psychol Psy 41:441–455
• Juvonen J, Graham S (2001) Peer harassment in school: the plight of the vulnerable and victimized. Guilford Press, New York
• Ma L, Phelps E, Lerner JV, Lerner RM (2009) The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. J Appl Dev Psychol 30(5):628–644
• Olweus D (1993) Bullying at school:what we know and what we can do. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA
• Olweus D (1994) Annotation: bullying at school: basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 35:1171–1190
• Reijntjes A, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, Boelen PA, van der Schoot M, Telch MJ (2011) Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: a meta-analysis. Aggress Behav 37(3):215–222
• Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Kaukiainen A (1996) Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress Behav 22:1–15
• Sapouna M, Wolke D, Vannini N, Watson S, Woods S, Schneider W, Enz S, Hall L, Paiva A, Andre E, Dautenhahn K, Aylett R (2010) Virtual learning intervention to reduce bullying victimization in primary school: a controlled trial. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 51(1):104–112
• Sch€afer M, Korn S, Brodbeck FC, Wolke D, Schulz H (2005) Bullying roles in changing contexts: the stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school. Int J Behav Dev 29:323–335
• Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE (1997) The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying. Child Dev 68(4):665–675
• Smith PK, Madsen K, Moody J (1999a) What causes the age decline in being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educ Res 41:267–285
• Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds) (1999b) The nature of school bullying: a cross-national perspective. Routledge, London
• Smith PK, Cowie H, Olafsson R, Liefooghe APD (2002) Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and sex differences, in a 14-country international comparison. Child Dev 73:1119–1133
• Smith PK, Pepler D, Rigby K (2004) Bullying in schools: how successful can interventions be? Cambridge University Press, New York
• Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N (2008) Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 49(4):376–385
• Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F, Loeber R (2011) The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: a systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Crim Beh Ment Health 21:80–89
• Vreeman RC, Carroll AE (2007) A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161(1):78–88
• Wang J, Ionnotti RJ, Nansel TR (2009) School bullying among adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. J Adolesc Health 45:368–375
• Wolke D, Samara M (2004) Bullied by siblings: association with peer victimization and behavior problems in Israeli lower secondary school children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 45(5):1015–1029

More Bullying Research Paper Examples:

Order high quality custom paper.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How to Build Consensus Around a New Idea

• Devon Proudfoot
• Wayne Johnson

Strategies for overcoming the disagreements that can stymie innovation.

Previous research has found that new ideas are seen as risky and are often rejected. New research suggests that this rejection can be due to people’s lack of shared criteria or reference points when evaluating a potential innovation’s value. In a new paper, the authors find that the more novel the idea, the more people differ on their perception of its value. They also found that disagreement itself can make people view ideas as risky and make them less likely to support them, regardless of how novel the idea is. To help teams get on the same page when it comes to new ideas, they suggest gathering information about evaluator’s reference points and developing criteria that can lead to more focused discussions.

Picture yourself in a meeting where a new idea has just been pitched, representing a major departure from your company’s standard practices. The presenter is confident about moving forward, but their voice is quickly overtaken by a cacophony of opinions from firm opposition to enthusiastic support. How can you make sense of the noise? What weight do you give each of these opinions? And what does this disagreement say about the idea?

• DP Devon Proudfoot is an Associate Professor of Human Resource Studies at Cornell’s ILR School. She studies topics related to diversity and creativity at work.
• Wayne Johnson is a researcher at the Utah Eccles School of Business. He focuses on evaluations and decisions about new information, including persuasion regarding creative ideas and belief change.

Partner Center

Raygun is the internet's newest villain — and memes about her have paved the way for a wave of gleeful misinformation

• Rachael Gunn, better known as B-Girl Raygun, has become a high-profile figure after the Olympics.
• But it's not because of a medal — Gunn has turned into a meme, and the subject of misinformation.
• The jokes about Gunn paved the way for untrue claims about the legitimacy of her qualification to spread.

You might have heard about Raygun .

On the other side of the 2024 Paris Olympics , Australian B-Girl Rachael Gunn, has become one of its highest-profile competitors. But it's not because of a record or a gold medal — it's because, for the past week, Raygun has become one of the internet's latest villains.

Gunn is a 36-year-old lecturer at Macquarie University in Sydney. She has a PhD in cultural studies, and her research interests include the cultural politics of her own sport. She was first introduced to breaking in 2008 and has been a top-ranked breaker in Australia since regional organization AUSBreaking began releasing its ranked lists in 2020.

She's now also a worldwide meme. Gunn's performance at the Olympics, while clad in green and gold Team Australia sweats and a polo, quickly went viral as people compared her kangaroo-hopping moves to a child dancing. The fervor that followed paralleled the rise of other oft-memed figures like Lin-Manuel Miranda or Ed Sheeran, except this was violently accelerated by the hypervisibility of the Olympics.

But the meme fervor around Gunn has paved the way for not only harassment and bullying, but also misinformation . Raygun, the meme villain, demands reckoning, and reckon people have: False, easily debunked claims about her qualification process and history have proliferated online in the wake of her meme virality.

Raygun memes were rooted in both mockery and genuine criticism

The initial wave of memes about Gunn were, for the most part, mockery of her performance. Gunn lost all three of her round-robin battles at the Olympics against breakers from the United States, France, and Lithuania. Clips of her performance spread on social platforms like X (formerly Twitter), showing Gunn contorting her body on the venue's floor.

Related stories

Judges made the right call here because what was that move lol #Olympics #Breakdancing pic.twitter.com/sXAs9AdHjX — MⓞNK BLOODY P👑s (@MonkeyBlood) August 9, 2024

I could live all my life and never come up with anything as funny as Raygun, the 36-year-old Australian Olympic breakdancer pic.twitter.com/1uPYBxIlh8 — mariah (@mariahkreutter) August 9, 2024

Eventually, people learned about Gunn's academic background as well.

"Finding out she's a phd in cultural studies focusing on breakdancing culture has left me maximally unsurprised," one Twitter user said , later clarifying that the comment wasn't meant as an insult.

Gunn's personal experience in breaking informs her own research, and she even published a paper in 2023 about the "sportification" of breaking via its inclusion at the Olympics. But as a white woman, there's tension in the fact that she's become the most prominent face of a sport that was pioneered by Black and brown people , even if it wasn't necessarily of her own volition.

Baltimore Banner columnist Leslie Gray Streeter wrote that Gunn's performance in the Olympics felt "not only shocking but derogatory."

Mockery shifted to misinformation, as people questioned the legitimacy of Raygun's qualification

On August 11, two days after Gunn competed in Paris, a Change.org petition was published titled "Hold Raygun Rachel Gunn & Anna Mears Accountable for Unethical Conduct Olympic Selection." Published anonymously by "Someone Who Hates Corruption," the petition accused Gunn of "setting up her own governing body," manipulating her qualifying process, and denying funding to underprivileged dancers to compete at the qualifier. It also suggested that her husband and coach, Samuel Free, may have judged her qualifier.

None of that is true. Gunn's qualifying event, the 2023 WDSF Oceania Breaking Championship, was facilitated by AUSBreaking. Gunn did not found that organization, nor has she ever been involved in its leadership. Her husband, Free, was not one of the listed judges for the event. And the Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) said in a statement Thursday that Gunn has "no responsibility for any funding decisions in her sport."

Others have spread screenshots of satirical social media posts as if they're fact, like one from the parody Facebook meme page The Sports Memery that depicts Raygun saying that she trained for "exactly 37 minutes" before competing.

The Change.org petition, which has since been taken down, served as a vehicle for its claims to spread on social media , leading the AOC to demand its removal in the statement linked above. On Thursday, a Change.org spokesperson told Business Insider in an email statement that after being flagged for misinformation, the petition had been reviewed against the platform's community guidelines and eventually removed.

Before that point, it had reached over 56,000 signatures, per an archived snapshot .

Gunn did win her qualifier fair and square, and she's been an established breaker in the Australian community for years. But the memery around Gunn and her near-instant villain status fit the narrative: Only a woman who had conned her way into the Olympics could have performed at the level the memes made it seem.

Memes, as NBC reported in 2019, can dehumanize their subjects. Even when juxtaposed against reasonable, good-faith criticism, the fact that the jokes came first can lend levity to what are very serious allegations about not only Gunn, but the sporting allegations that supported her competition in the Olympics.

Ultimately, Gunn has become the definitive story of breaking's debut at the Olympics, the fervor around her augmented by the conspicuous nature of the event itself. The sport won't appear again at the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics (a decision made prior to the Paris games), but that doesn't mean it's gone forever — perhaps it'll get another shot at the Brisbane games in 2032, back on Raygun's home turf.

And as for Gunn herself? In a video posted to Instagram Thursday , the athlete said she was taking a pre-planned holiday in Europe. Athletic organizations, including AUSBreaking and the Australian Olympic Committee, have backed debunking the virulent claims about her breakdancing career.

For now, it's unclear what the future of that career will hold. But the internet moves on quickly — and hopefully, Raygun's status as a conspiracy figure and internet villain will too.

• Main content

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

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

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

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

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

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

Original Submission Date Received: .

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

Article Menu

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

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

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

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A bibliometric review of innovations in sustainable tourism research: current trends and future research agenda.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical background, 3. materials and methods, 4.1. contribution and citation trends of countries, 4.2. contribution of the institutions, 4.3. contributions of the authors, 4.4. prolific journals and publishers, 4.5. most common keywords, 4.6. citation analysis, 5. discussion.

• Inter-country collaboration. Forming a research cluster encompassing several countries not only extends the boundaries of the research to the international (or global) level but also enables generating higher-quality research and obtaining more reliable and widely applicable results.
• Leading institution. Considering inter-institutional (or inter-country) collaboration, authors are encouraged to evaluate the familiarity of the institution among scholarly society. Partnering with a well-known institution may lead to wider dissemination of the research results as the name of the institution can attract researchers’ interest in the publication [ 18 ].
• Journal choice. It is acknowledged that the multidisciplinary or more general areas representing journals may reach wider audiences considering that domain-related journals are crucial for the smoother development of the field of knowledge. Therefore, publishing in tourism-related journals should be considered regarding the further perspectives of acknowledgment by scholarship and the researcher’s reputation. The number of citations of tourism research in non-tourism disciplines is very small compared to the tens of thousands of internal citations within tourism research [ 92 ].
• Topic choice. Two extremes can be envisioned in this regard. On the one extreme, exceptionally tourism-focused research can be chosen. However, such a choice is extremely conceptual and hardly performable. Therefore, the collaboration and adoption of know-how from other disciplines can be chosen. The academic discourse surrounding tourism’s interdisciplinary approach has long piqued the interest of the scholarly community [ 93 ].

6. Conclusions

Author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Dimitrijević, M.S. Technological Progress in the Function of Productivity and Sustainability of Agriculture: The Case of Innovative Countries and the Republic of Serbia. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023 , 14 , 100856. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, G.; Dahlstrand, Å.L. Innovations, Informality, and the Global South: A Thematic Analysis of Past Research and Future Directions. Technol. Soc. 2023 , 75 , 102359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Al-Sulaiti, A.; Madhoun, I.T.; Abdella, G.M.; Al-Yafei, H.; Hamouda, A.M. Innovation Ecosystems in Hydrocarbon-Based Economies: Opportunities and Challenges. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 14194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dodds, R. Introduction: Innovations in Sustainable Tourism. Téoros 2012 , 31 , 55–58. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El Archi, Y.; Benbba, B.; Kabil, M.; Dávid, L.D. Digital Technologies for Sustainable Tourism Destinations: State of the Art and Research Agenda. Adm. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Solangi, Y.A. Analysis of Factors and Strategies for the Implementation of Sustainable Tourism in a Green Economic Structure in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2024 , 434 , 140011. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grigaliūnaitė, V.; Pažėraitė, A.; Račkauskas, M. Save Myself or Others? The Influence of Attitude toward FMCG Products from Recycled Material on the Intention to Buy Them: Hidden Motives and the Role of Income. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 11528. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Bruyn, C.; Ben Said, F.; Meyer, N.; Soliman, M. Research in Tourism Sustainability: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis from 1990 to 2022. Heliyon 2023 , 9 , e18874. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjalager, A.-M. Innovation Patterns in Sustainable Tourism. Tour. Manag. 1997 , 18 , 35–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tsekouropoulos, G.; Gkouna, O.; Theocharis, D.; Gounas, A. Innovative Sustainable Tourism Development and Entrepreneurship through Sports Events. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tuzunkan, D. The Relationship between Innovation and Tourism: The Case of Smart Tourism. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 2017 , 12 , 14861–14867. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gretzel, U.; Sigala, M.; Xiang, Z.; Koo, C. Smart Tourism: Foundations and Developments. Electron Mark. 2015 , 25 , 179–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Williams, A.M.; Rodriguez, I.; Makkonen, T. Innovation and Smart Destinations: Critical Insights. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020 , 83 , 102930. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ivars-Baidal, J.A.; Vera-Rebollo, J.F.; Perles-Ribes, J.; Femenia-Serra, F.; Celdrán-Bernabeu, M.A. Sustainable Tourism Indicators: What’s New within the Smart City/Destination Approach? J. Sustain. Tour. 2023 , 31 , 1556–1582. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Edwards, D.; Martinac, I.; Miller, G. Research Agenda for Innovation in Sustainable Tourism. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2008 , 8 , 56–61. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Data Inf. Sci. 2017 , 2 , 1–40. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdi Khalife, M.; Dunay, A.; Illés, C.B. Bibliometric Analysis of Articles on Project Management Research. Period. Polytech. Soc. Man. Sci. 2020 , 29 , 70–83. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilelienė, L.; Jucevičius, G. A Decade of Innovation Ecosystem Development: Bibliometric Review of Scopus Database. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 16386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antolini, F.; Terraglia, I.; Cesarini, S. Integrating Multiple Data Sources to Measure Sustainable Tourism in Italian Regions. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2024 , 95 , 101959. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vargáné Csobán, K. The Assessment of Sustainable Tourism. Acta Agrar. Debr. 2005 , 16 , 414–421. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pan, S.-Y.; Gao, M.; Kim, H.; Shah, K.J.; Pei, S.-L.; Chiang, P.-C. Advances and Challenges in Sustainable Tourism toward a Green Economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2018 , 635 , 452–469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bayrak, G.Ö. Sustainable Tourism. In Encyclopedia of Corporate Social Responsibility ; Idowu, S.O., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Gupta, A.D., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 2483–2489. ISBN 978-3-642-28035-1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres-Delgado, A.; Saarinen, J. Using Indicators to Assess Sustainable Tourism Development: A Review. Tour. Geogr. 2014 , 16 , 31–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kilipiris, F.; Zardava, S. Developing Sustainable Tourism in a Changing Environment: Issues for the Tourism Enterprises (Travel Agencies and Hospitality Enterprises). Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012 , 44 , 44–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seraphin, H.; Korstanje, M.; Gowreesunkar, V. Diaspora and Ambidextrous Management of Tourism in Post-Colonial, Post-Conflict and Post-Disaster Destinations. J. Tour. Cult. Chang. 2020 , 18 , 113–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, C.M. Constructing Sustainable Tourism Development: The 2030 Agenda and the Managerial Ecology of Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019 , 27 , 1044–1060. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gössling, S. Global Environmental Consequences of Tourism. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2002 , 12 , 283–302. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Peeters, P.; Çakmak, E.; Guiver, J. Current Issues in Tourism: Mitigating Climate Change in Sustainable Tourism Research. Tour. Manag. 2024 , 100 , 104820. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, M.; Huang, S.; Ahmed, S. Assessing the Impact of Green Finance on Sustainable Tourism Development in China. Heliyon 2024 , 10 , e31099. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Rehman, S.U.; Khan, S.N.; Antohi, V.M.; Bashir, S.; Fareed, M.; Fortea, C.; Cristian, N.P. Open Innovation Big Data Analytics and Its Influence on Sustainable Tourism Development: A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Economic, Policy, and Behavioral Factors. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2024 , 10 , 100254. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hussain, S.; Ahonen, V.; Karasu, T.; Leviäkangas, P. Sustainability of Smart Rural Mobility and Tourism: A Key Performance Indicators-Based Approach. Technol. Soc. 2023 , 74 , 102287. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vo Thanh, T.; Seraphin, H.; Okumus, F.; Koseoglu, M.A. Organizational Ambidexterity in Tourism Research: A Systematic Review. Tour. Anal. 2020 , 25 , 137–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wilkerson, B.; Trellevik, L.-K.L. Sustainability-Oriented Innovation: Improving Problem Definition through Combined Design Thinking and Systems Mapping Approaches. Think. Ski. Creat. 2021 , 42 , 100932. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shafiee, S.; Rajabzadeh Ghatari, A.; Hasanzadeh, A.; Jahanyan, S. Developing a Model for Sustainable Smart Tourism Destinations: A Systematic Review. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019 , 31 , 287–300. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Singh, S.; Aggarwal, Y. In Search of a Consensus Definition of Innovation: A Qualitative Synthesis of 208 Definitions Using Grounded Theory Approach. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2022 , 35 , 177–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sardak, S.; Dzhyndzhoian, V.; Samoilenko, A. Global Innovations in Tourism. Innov. Mark. 2016 , 12 , 45–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buckley, R. Sustainable Tourism: Research and Reality. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012 , 39 , 528–546. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Séraphin, H.; Butcher, J. Tourism Management in the Caribbean: The Case of Haiti. Caribb. Q. 2018 , 64 , 254–283. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Séraphin, H.; Smith, S.M.; Scott, P.; Stokes, P. Destination Management through Organisational Ambidexterity: Conceptualising Haitian Enclaves. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018 , 9 , 389–392. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Buhalis, D.; Harwood, T.; Bogicevic, V.; Viglia, G.; Beldona, S.; Hofacker, C. Technological Disruptions in Services: Lessons from Tourism and Hospitality. JOSM 2019 , 30 , 484–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sustacha, I.; Baños-Pino, J.F.; Del Valle, E. The Role of Technology in Enhancing the Tourism Experience in Smart Destinations: A Meta-Analysis. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2023 , 30 , 100817. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, S.M.; Trimi, S. Innovation for Creating a Smart Future. J. Innov. Knowl. 2018 , 3 , 1–8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Al-Zahrani, S.A.; Khraiwish, A. Consumer Behaviour to Be Considered in Advertising: A Systematic Analysis and Future Agenda. Behav. Sci. 2022 , 12 , 472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsharif, A.H.; Salleh, N.Z.M.; Abdullah, M.; Khraiwish, A.; Ashaari, A. Neuromarketing Tools Used in the Marketing Mix: A Systematic Literature and Future Research Agenda. SAGE Open 2023 , 13 , 215824402311565. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shukla, A.K.; Muhuri, P.K.; Abraham, A. A Bibliometric Analysis and Cutting-Edge Overview on Fuzzy Techniques in Big Data. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020 , 92 , 103625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Syst. Rev. 2015 , 4 , 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsharif, A.; Md. Salleh, N.Z.; Pilelienė, L. A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of fNIRS and fMRI Technology in Neuromarketing. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 2023 , 70 , 459–472. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moustakas, L. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Social Cohesion from 1994–2020. Publications 2022 , 10 , 5. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Khan, M.; Woo, M.; Nam, K.; Chathoth, P. Smart City and Smart Tourism: A Case of Dubai. Sustainability 2017 , 9 , 2279. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumpulainen, M.; Seppänen, M. Combining Web of Science and Scopus Datasets in Citation-Based Literature Study. Scientometrics 2022 , 127 , 5613–5631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Granda-Orive, J.I.; Alonso-Arroyo, A.; Roig-Vázquez, F. Which Data Base Should We Use for Our Literature Analysis? Web of Science versus SCOPUS. Arch. De Bronconeumol. 2011 , 47 , 213. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Eysenbach, G. Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles. PLoS Biol. 2006 , 4 , e157. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dorta-González, P.; Dorta-González, M.I. Citation Differences across Research Funding and Access Modalities. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2023 , 49 , 102734. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McAllister, J.; Torres, J. Discovering Open Access Trends in Engineering: A Bibliometric Analysis of Open Access Publications at a Large Research University. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2023 , 42 , 50–67. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Alsharif, A.H.; Mohd Isa, S. Revolutionizing Consumer Insights: The Impact of fMRI in Neuromarketing Research. Futur Bus J 2024 , 10 , 79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hjalager, A.-M. Tourism and the Environment: The Innovation Connection. J. Sustain. Tour. 1996 , 4 , 201–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lawton, L.J.; Weaver, D.B. Normative and Innovative Sustainable Resource Management at Birding Festivals. Tour. Manag. 2010 , 31 , 527–536. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chao, R.-F. Development of Slow Tourism Challenge and Operation Architecture: A Case Study on Green Island, Taiwan. Acta Oeconomica 2015 , 65 , 351–367. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nair, V.; Hussain, K.; Lo, M.C.; Ragavan, N.A. Benchmarking Innovations and New Practices in Rural Tourism Development: How Do We Develop a More Sustainable and Responsible Rural Tourism in Asia? WW Hosp. Tour. Themes 2015 , 7 , 530–534. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grančay, M. COVID-19 and Central European Tourism: The Competitiveness of Slovak Tourist Guides. CEBR 2020 , 9 , 81–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhaskara, G.I.; Filimonau, V.; Wijaya, N.M.S.; Suryasih, I.A. Innovation and Creativity in a Time of Crisis: A Perspective of Small Tourism Enterprises from an Emerging Destination. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023 , 46 , 101093. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Andrés, A. Author Production. In Measuring Academic Research ; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 23–30. ISBN 978-1-84334-528-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Della Corte, V.; Del Gaudio, G.; Sepe, F.; Sciarelli, F. Sustainable Tourism in the Open Innovation Realm: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 6114. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chau, K.Y.; Lin, C.-H.; Tufail, B.; Tran, T.K.; Van, L.; Nguyen, T.T.H. Impact of Eco-Innovation and Sustainable Tourism Growth on the Environmental Degradation: The Case of China. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2023 , 36 , 2150258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Xu, F.; Nash, N.; Whitmarsh, L. Big Data or Small Data? A Methodological Review of Sustainable Tourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2020 , 28 , 144–163. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardoso, C. The Contribution of Tourism towards a More Sustainable and Inclusive Society: Key Guiding Principles in Times of Crisis. WHATT 2020 , 12 , 679–689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garcia, D.A.; Cumo, F.; Sforzini, V.; Albo, A. Eco Friendly Service Buildings and Facilities for Sustainable Tourism and Environmental Awareness in Protected Areas ; WIT Press: A Coruna, Spain, 2012; pp. 323–330. [ Google Scholar ]
• Candia, S.; Pirlone, F.; Spadaro, I. Integrating the Carrying Capacity Methodology into Tourism Strategic Plans: A Sustainable Approach to Tourism. IJSDP 2020 , 15 , 393–401. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Szromek, A.R. The Sustainable Business Model of Spa Tourism Enterprise—Results of Research Carried Out in Poland. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021 , 7 , 73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• González-Reverté, F.; Gomis-López, J.M.; Díaz-Luque, P. Reset or Temporary Break? Attitudinal Change, Risk Perception and Future Travel Intention in Tourists Experiencing the COVID-19 Pandemic. JTF 2022 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santosa, H.; Yudono, A.; Adhitama, M.S. The Digital Management System of the Tangible Culture Heritage for Enhancing Historic Building Governance in Malang, Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021 , 738 , 012056. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Florido, C.; Jacob, M.; Payeras, M. How to Carry out the Transition towards a More Circular Tourist Activity in the Hotel Sector. The Role of Innovation. Adm. Sci. 2019 , 9 , 47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weaver, D. Creative Periphery Syndrome? Opportunities for Sustainable Tourism Innovation in Timor-Leste, an Early Stage Destination. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2018 , 43 , 118–128. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Idris, I.; Adi, K.R.; Firmansyah, R.; Nadhianty, A.; Mobaroq, M.H.; Putri, P.G.; Pratama, A.S.; Wahono, E.R. Developing smart tourism using virtual reality as a tourism promotion strategy in indonesia. GTG 2021 , 35 , 332–337. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ito, J.Y.; Silveira, F.F.; Munhoz, I.P.; Akkari, A.C.S. International Publication Trends in Lean Agile Management Research: A Bibliometric Analysis. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2023 , 219 , 666–673. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, G.D.; Thomas, A.; Paul, J. Reviving Tourism Industry Post-COVID-19: A Resilience-Based Framework. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021 , 37 , 100786. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hall, J.; Matos, S.; Sheehan, L.; Silvestre, B. Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Base of the Pyramid: A Recipe for Inclusive Growth or Social Exclusion? J Manag. Stud. 2012 , 49 , 785–812. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• He, P.; He, Y.; Xu, F. Evolutionary Analysis of Sustainable Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2018 , 69 , 76–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coghlan, A. Facilitating Reef Tourism Management through an Innovative Importance-Performance Analysis Method. Tour. Manag. 2012 , 33 , 767–775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van, N.T.T.; Vrana, V.; Duy, N.T.; Minh, D.X.H.; Dzung, P.T.; Mondal, S.R.; Das, S. The Role of Human–Machine Interactive Devices for Post-COVID-19 Innovative Sustainable Tourism in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 9523. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Garau, C. Perspectives on Cultural and Sustainable Rural Tourism in a Smart Region: The Case Study of Marmilla in Sardinia (Italy). Sustainability 2015 , 7 , 6412–6434. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aman, J.; Abbas, J.; Mahmood, S.; Nurunnabi, M.; Bano, S. The Influence of Islamic Religiosity on the Perceived Socio-Cultural Impact of Sustainable Tourism Development in Pakistan: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 3039. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elmo, G.C.; Arcese, G.; Valeri, M.; Poponi, S.; Pacchera, F. Sustainability in Tourism as an Innovation Driver: An Analysis of Family Business Reality. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 6149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Li, Z.; Wang, D.; Abbas, J.; Hassan, S.; Mubeen, R. Tourists’ Health Risk Threats Amid COVID-19 Era: Role of Technology Innovation, Transformation, and Recovery Implications for Sustainable Tourism. Front. Psychol. 2022 , 12 , 769175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Nitti, M.; Pilloni, V.; Giusto, D.; Popescu, V. IoT Architecture for a Sustainable Tourism Application in a Smart City Environment. Mob. Inf. Syst. 2017 , 2017 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Coles, T.; Dinan, C.; Warren, N. Energy Practices among Small- and Medium-Sized Tourism Enterprises: A Case of Misdirected Effort? J. Clean. Prod. 2016 , 111 , 399–408. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Karagiannis, D.; Metaxas, T. Sustainable Wine Tourism Development: Case Studies from the Greek Region of Peloponnese. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 5223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bornmann, L.; Daniel, H. What Do Citation Counts Measure? A Review of Studies on Citing Behavior. J. Doc. 2008 , 64 , 45–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Devkota, N.; Kmeco, Ľ.; Thapa, S.; Houška, P.; Poudel, U.R. Tourists’ Perception of Travel Risk and Management in Destination amid COVID-19 Pandemic: Empirical Evidence from Nepal. J. Tour. Serv. 2022 , 25 , 90–119. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilelienė, L.; Alsharif, A.H.; Bader Alharbi, I. Scientometric analysis of scientific literature on neuromarketing tools in advertising. BJES 2022 , 8 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wardle, C.; Buckley, R. Tourism Citations in Other Disciplines. Ann. Tour. Res. 2014 , 46 , 166–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cardoso, L.; Araujo, A.; Silva, R.; Almeida, G.G.F.D.; Campos, F.; Santos, L.L. Demystifying Neurotourism: An Interdisciplinary Approach and Research Agenda. EJTR 2023 , 36 , 3618. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jafari, J.; McCabe, S. Emergence: Annals and the Evolving Research and Publishing Landscape in Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2024 , 104 , 103720. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nowacki, M.; Nurkowska, M. Crisis Management in Restaurants: The Case of Polish Restaurants during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 14631. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Simpson, J.J.; Schuler Scott, A. Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend: War Volunteer Tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2023 , 101 , 103612. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dolnicar, S.; McCabe, S. Solidarity Tourism How Can Tourism Help the Ukraine and Other War-Torn Countries? Ann. Tour. Res. 2022 , 94 , 103386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gong, Y.; Schroeder, A. A Systematic Literature Review of Data Privacy and Security Research on Smart Tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022 , 44 , 101019. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ladkin, A.; Mooney, S.; Solnet, D.; Baum, T.; Robinson, R.; Yan, H. A Review of Research into Tourism Work and Employment: Launching the Annals of Tourism Research Curated Collection on Tourism Work and Employment. Ann. Tour. Res. 2023 , 100 , 103554. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Saito, H.; Ruhanen, L. Power in Tourism Stakeholder Collaborations: Power Types and Power Holders. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2017 , 31 , 189–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nowacki, M.; Kowalczyk-Anioł, J. Experiencing Islands: Is Sustainability Reported in Tourists’ Online Reviews? J. Ecotour. 2023 , 22 , 59–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilelienė, L.; Grigaliūnaitė, V. Elaboration of holistic tourist satisfaction index model for Lithuania. BJES 2019 , 5 , 17. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almeida, G.G.F.D.; Cardoso, L. Discussions between Place Branding and Territorial Brand in Regional Development—A Classification Model Proposal for a Territorial Brand. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 6669. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Almeida, G.G.F.D.; Almeida, P.; Cardoso, L.; Lima Santos, L. Uses and Functions of the Territorial Brand over Time: Interdisciplinary Cultural-Historical Mapping. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 6448. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Séraphin, H.; Chaney, D. A Research Agenda for the Sustainability of the Tourism Industry: A Childism Perspective on Overtourism. J. Clean. Prod. 2023 , 414 , 137556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seraphin, H.; Sheeran, P.; Pilato, M. Over-Tourism and the Fall of Venice as a Destination. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018 , 9 , 374–376. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dias, F.T.P.; Góis, S.M.R.; Gomes, G.N.D.C.O. Tourism Monitoring as a Strategic Tool for Tourism Management: The Perceptions of Entrepreneurs from Centro de Portugal. Adm. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beal, L.; Séraphin, H.; Modica, G.; Pilato, M.; Platania, M. Analysing the Mediating Effect of Heritage Between Locals and Visitors: An Exploratory Study Using Mission Patrimoine as a Case Study. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 3015. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nowacki, M.; Niezgoda, A. What Experiences Do Tourists Seek in National Parks? Analysis of TripAdvisor Reviews. EiS 2023 , 84 , 341–359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bauer, I. Response to ‘Tourism Citations in Other Disciplines’. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015 , 53 , 99–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dresler, E. Multiplicity of Moral Emotions in Educational Dark Tourism. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023 , 46 , 101094. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Batyk, I.M.; Žukovskis, J.; Pilelienė, L. Determinants of Cross-Border Food Purchases on the European Union Market: Research Results from the Lithuanian–Polish Border. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 10288. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pilelienė, L.; Batyk, I.M.; Žukovskis, J. Cross-Border Shopping on the European Union Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Market: Determinants of Lithuanian Shoppers’ Behavior in Poland. Sustainability 2023 , 16 , 102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Michalko, G.; Ratz, T. Typically Female Features in Hungarian Shopping Tourism. Mijracijske I Enticke Teme 2006 , 22 , 79–93. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moradi, E.; Ehsani, M.; Saffari, M.; Norouzi Seyed Hosseini, R. Developing an Integrated Model for the Competitiveness of Sports Tourism Destinations. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 , 26 , 100743. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Castro, D.; Kim, S.; Assaker, G. An Empirical Examination of the Antecedents of Residents’ Support for Future Film Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2023 , 45 , 101067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Polat, N. Technical Innovations in Cruise Tourism and Results of Sustainability. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015 , 195 , 438–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Łapko, A.; Hącia, E.; Strulak-Wójcikiewicz, R.; Çınar, K.; Panai, E.; Lučić, L. Eco-Friendly Tourism Decision Making during COVID-19—Sailing Tourism Example. Sustainability 2021 , 14 , 134. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, J.; An, K.; Jang, S. Threshold Effect and Mechanism of Tourism Industrial Agglomeration on Green Innovation Efficiency: Evidence from Coastal Urban Agglomerations in China. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2023 , 246 , 106908. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Luongo, S.; Sepe, F.; Del Gaudio, G. Regional Innovation Systems in Tourism: The Role of Collaboration and Competition. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023 , 9 , 100148. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Salgado-Criado, J.; Mataix-Aldeanueva, C.; Nardini, S.; López-Pablos, C.; Balestrini, M.; Rosales-Torres, C.S. How Should We Govern Digital Innovation? A Venture Capital Perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2024 , 200 , 123198. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, S.; Liu, W.; Han, W.; Xie, J.; Sun, M. Influence Mechanism of Tourists’ Impulsive Behavior in E-Sports Tourism: Mediating Role of Arousal. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022 , 44 , 101032. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Abbas, J.; He, C.; Pilař, L.; Shah, S.A.R. Tourism, Urbanization and Natural Resources Rents Matter for Environmental Sustainability: The Leading Role of AI and ICT on Sustainable Development Goals in the Digital Era. Resour. Policy 2023 , 82 , 103445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mihalache, M.; Mihalache, O.R. Organizational Ambidexterity and Sustained Performance in the Tourism Industry. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016 , 56 , 142–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Goo, J.; Huang, C.D.; Yoo, C.W.; Koo, C. Smart Tourism Technologies’ Ambidexterity: Balancing Tourist’s Worries and Novelty Seeking for Travel Satisfaction. Inf Syst Front 2022 , 24 , 2139–2158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Alsharif, A.H.; Md Salleh, N.Z.; Pilelienė, L.; Al-Zahrani, S.A. Exploring the Tourism, Neuro-Tourism, and Hospitality Nexus: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. JoTS 2023 , 14 , 197–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Song, H.; Van Der Veen, R.; Li, G.; Chen, J.L. The Hong Kong Tourist Satisfaction Index. Ann. Tour. Res. 2012 , 39 , 459–479. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Pilelienė, L.; Grigaliūnaitė, V.; Bogoyavlenska, Y. A Bibliometric Review of Innovations in Sustainable Tourism Research: Current Trends and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167124

Pilelienė L, Grigaliūnaitė V, Bogoyavlenska Y. A Bibliometric Review of Innovations in Sustainable Tourism Research: Current Trends and Future Research Agenda. Sustainability . 2024; 16(16):7124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167124

Pilelienė, Lina, Viktorija Grigaliūnaitė, and Yuliya Bogoyavlenska. 2024. "A Bibliometric Review of Innovations in Sustainable Tourism Research: Current Trends and Future Research Agenda" Sustainability 16, no. 16: 7124. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16167124

Article Metrics

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

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Grab your spot at the free arXiv Accessibility Forum

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: hybridrag: integrating knowledge graphs and vector retrieval augmented generation for efficient information extraction.

Abstract: Extraction and interpretation of intricate information from unstructured text data arising in financial applications, such as earnings call transcripts, present substantial challenges to large language models (LLMs) even using the current best practices to use Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) (referred to as VectorRAG techniques which utilize vector databases for information retrieval) due to challenges such as domain specific terminology and complex formats of the documents. We introduce a novel approach based on a combination, called HybridRAG, of the Knowledge Graphs (KGs) based RAG techniques (called GraphRAG) and VectorRAG techniques to enhance question-answer (Q&A) systems for information extraction from financial documents that is shown to be capable of generating accurate and contextually relevant answers. Using experiments on a set of financial earning call transcripts documents which come in the form of Q&A format, and hence provide a natural set of pairs of ground-truth Q&As, we show that HybridRAG which retrieves context from both vector database and KG outperforms both traditional VectorRAG and GraphRAG individually when evaluated at both the retrieval and generation stages in terms of retrieval accuracy and answer generation. The proposed technique has applications beyond the financial domain

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Fact-Checking Biden’s Speech and More: Day 1 of the Democratic National Convention

We followed the developments and fact-checked the speakers, providing context and explanation.

• Share full article

President Biden praised his administration’s accomplishments and declared his vice president a worthy successor on the first night of the Democratic National Convention on Monday.

Mr. Biden’s speech capped a night in which Democratic lawmakers and party stalwarts praised Vice President Kamala Harris, warned repeatedly that former President Donald J. Trump was unfit for office and celebrated Mr. Biden’s legacy.

Here’s a look at some of their claims.

“While schools closed and dead bodies filled morgues, Donald Trump downplayed the virus. He told us to inject bleach into our bodies. He peddled conspiracy theories across the country. We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans, and our economy collapsed.”

— Representative Robert Garcia of California

This is exaggerated.

Mr. Trump’s comments, in April 2020, about the efficacy of disinfectants and light as treatments for the coronavirus elicited uproar and confusion . He did not literally instruct people to inject bleach, but raised the suggestion as an “interesting” concept to test out.

At the April 2020 news conference , a member of Mr. Trump’s coronavirus task force said that the virus dies under direct sunlight and that applying bleach in indoor spaces kills the virus in five minutes and isopropyl alcohol does so in 30 seconds.

Mr. Trump responded: “Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too.”

He added: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning? Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”

Jeanna Smialek

“Trump talks big about bringing back manufacturing jobs, but you know who actually did it? President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.”

— Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York

This needs context .

It is true that manufacturing employment is up sharply under the Biden administration, but much of the gains are simply a recovery from job losses early in the coronavirus pandemic. Manufacturing employment is just slightly above its 2019 level. And factory employment also climbed somewhat from when Donald J. Trump took office in early 2017 and the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

Advertisement

“Thanks to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, we reopened our schools.”

— Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina

This needs context.

President Donald J. Trump and President Biden took different approaches to school reopenings during the coronavirus pandemic, with Mr. Trump encouraging schools to stay open and Mr. Biden emphasizing the need to contain the virus before reopening classroom doors. While they could signal policy preferences, developments in how the virus spread and how states and school districts reacted were sometimes out of their control.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warned schools to prepare for disruption in February 2020, and a high school in Washington State became the first to close its doors that month . More schools across the country followed in adopting online instruction, but by the fall of 2020, some schools — often in states with Republican governors — returned to in-person instruction.

One audit found that by the fall of 2020 more schools had reverted to a traditional or hybrid model than remained virtual. A C.D.C. study found that school closures peaked in 2021, under the Biden administration, when the Omicron variant spread. By the fall of 2021, though, 98 percent of public schools were offering in-person instruction full time, according to the Education Department .

“Donald Trump wants to put our 1787 constitution through his Project 2025 paper shredder.”

— Representative Jasmine Crockett, Democrat of Texas

Project 2025, a set of conservative policy proposals assembled by a Washington think tank for a Republican presidential administration, does not directly come from Mr. Trump or his campaign.

Still, CNN documented instances where 140 people who worked for the Trump administration had a role in Project 2025. Some were top advisers to Mr. Trump in his first term and a re all but certain to step into prominent posts should he win a second term.

Mr. Trump has also supported some of the proposals, with even some overlap between Project 2025 and his own campaign plans. Among the similarities: undercutting the independence of the Justice Department and pressing to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And he enacted other initiatives mentioned in Project 2025 in his first term, such as levying tariffs on China and making it easier to fire federal workers.

But Mr. Trump has criticized some elements as “absolutely ridiculous and abysmal” though he has not specified which proposals he opposes. When the director of the project departed the think tank, Mr. Trump’s campaign released a statement that stated: “Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign — it will not end well for you.”

“JD Vance says women should stay in violent marriages and pregnancies resulting from rape are simply inconvenient.”

— Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky

Mr. Beshear was referring to comments Mr. Vance made during his 2022 campaign for Senate. Mr. Vance has rejected such interpretations.

In remarks to a Christian high school in California in September 2021, Mr. Vance spoke of his grandparents’ marriage, which he described in his memoir as violent.

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘Well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term,” he said .

Asked by Vice News about his remarks in 2022, Mr. Vance said, “Any fair person would recognize I was criticizing the progressive frame on this issue, not embracing it.”

He also told Fox News that Democrats had “twisted my words here” and that “it’s not what I believe, it’s not what I said.”

And regarding pregnancies resulting from rape, Mr. Vance told Fox News that he was criticizing the view that such pregnancies are “inconvenient.”

In a 2021 interview , Mr. Vance was asked whether abortion bans should have exceptions for rape or incest. He responded, “At the end of the day, we’re talking about an unborn baby. What kind of society do we want to have? A society that looks at unborn babies as inconveniences to be discarded?”

“Instead of paying $400 a month for insulin, seniors with diabetes will pay $35 a month.”

— President Biden

Mr. Biden signed a law that places a cap of $35 a month on insulin for all Medicare Part D beneficiaries. But he is overstating the average cost before the law.

Patients’ out-of-pocket spending on insulin was $434 on average for all of 2019 — not per month — and $449 per year for Medicare enrollees, according to the Health and Human Services Department .

“The smallest racial wealth gap in 20 years.”

As a percentage of wealth held by white families, Black and Latino families did grow to the largest amounts in 2022 in two decades. But the disparity in absolute dollar value actually increased.

“He called them ‘suckers and losers.’”

The claim that, as president, Donald J. Trump called veterans “suckers” and “losers” stems from a 2020 article in The Atlantic about his relationship to the military.

The article relied on anonymous sources, but many of the accounts have been corroborated by other outlets, including The New York Times, and by John F. Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general who served as Mr. Trump’s White House chief of staff. Mr. Trump has emphatically denied making the remarks since the article was published. Here’s a breakdown .

“Trump wants to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

This is misleading..

Mr. Trump has said repeatedly during his 2024 presidential campaign that he would not cut Social Security or Medicare, though he had previously shown brief and vague support for such proposals.

Asked about his position on the programs in relation to the national debt, Mr. Trump told CNBC in March, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements.”

But Mr. Trump and his campaign clarified that he would not seek to cut the programs. Mr. Trump told the website Breitbart , “I will never do anything that will jeopardize or hurt Social Security or Medicare.” And during a July rally in Minnesota, he again vowed, “I will not cut one penny from Social Security or Medicare, and I will not raise the retirement age by one day, not by one day.”

Still, Mr. Trump has not outlined a clear plan for keeping the programs solvent. During his time in office, Mr. Trump did propose some cuts to Medicare — though experts said the cost reductions would not have significantly affected benefits — and to Social Security’s programs for people with disabilities. They were not enacted by Congress.

“He created the largest debt any president had in four years with his two trillion dollars tax cut for the wealthy.”

Looking at a single presidential term, Donald J. Trump’s administration did rack up more debt than any other in raw dollars — about $7.9 trillion . But the debt rose more under President Barack Obama’s eight years than under Mr. Trump’s four years. Also, when viewed as a percentage increase, the national debt rose more under President George H.W. Bush’s single term than under Mr. Trump’s.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that Mr. Trump’s tax cuts — which passed in December 2017 with no Democrats in support — roughly added another $1 trillion to the federal deficit from 2018 to 2021, even after factoring in economic growth spurred by the tax cuts. But other drivers of the deficit include several sweeping measures that had bipartisan approval. The first coronavirus stimulus package , which received near unanimous support in Congress, added $2 trillion to the deficit over the next two fiscal years. Three additional spending measures contending with the coronavirus pandemic and its economic ramifications added another $1.4 trillion.

It is also important to note that presidents do not hold unilateral responsibility for the debt increase under their time in office. Policies from previous administrations — and programs such as Social Security and Medicare — continue to drive up debt, as do unexpected circumstances.