literature review on bullying in schools

Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review

Affiliations.

• 1 Departamento de Enfermagem Materno Infantil e Saúde Pública, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, USP. Av. Bandeirantes 3900, Monte Alegre. 14040-902 Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil. [email protected].
• 2 Departamento de Enfermagem Psiquiátrica e Ciências Humanas, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, USP. Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil.
• 3 Departamento de Psicologia, Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras de Ribeirão Preto, USP. Ribeirão Preto SP Brasil.
• PMID: 28724015
• DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232017227.16242015

This paper presents a systematic literature review addressing rigorously planned and assessed interventions intended to reduce school bullying. The search for papers was performed in four databases (Lilacs, Psycinfo, Scielo and Web of Science) and guided by the question: What are the interventions used to reduce bullying in schools? Only case-control studies specifically focusing on school bullying without a time frame were included. The methodological quality of investigations was assessed using the SIGN checklist. A total of 18 papers composed the corpus of analysis and all were considered to have high methodological quality. The interventions conducted in the revised studies were divided into four categories: multi-component or whole-school, social skills training, curricular, and computerized. The review synthesizes knowledge that can be used to contemplate practices and intervention programs in the education and health fields with a multidisciplinary nature.

Publication types

• Systematic Review
• Bullying / prevention & control*
• Interdisciplinary Communication
• Research Design
• Social Skills*

A Systematic Review of Bullying and Victimization Among Adolescents in India

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020
• Volume 3 , pages 253–269, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Niharika Thakkar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8754-6708 1 ,
• Mitch van Geel 1 &
• Paul Vedder 1  

11k Accesses

14 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study provides a systematic review of literature from India on traditional bullying and victimization among school-going adolescents. A search of bibliographic electronic databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed in May 2020. Thirty-seven studies were included in the review. For each study included, the following specifics were examined: (a) methodological characteristics, (b) prevalence estimates of bullying behavior, (c) forms of bullying, (d) risk factors, and (e) consequences of bullying. It was found that bullying happens in India, and some risk factors for bullying and victimization in India are typical to the Indian context. In addition, bullying in India is associated with adverse consequences for both the aggressor and the victim. Many studies on bullying from India should be interpreted cautiously because of problems with data collection processes, instrumentation, and presentation of the findings. Cross-cultural comparisons for prevalence estimates, and longitudinal studies to examine the direction of possible influence between bullying and its correlates need to be conducted, to cater to the large adolescent population of India.

Similar content being viewed by others

A multi-country analysis of the prevalence and factors associated with bullying victimisation among in-school adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from the global school-based health survey

Bullying victimization and its associated factors among adolescents in Illu Abba Bor Zone, Southwest Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study

Prevalence and factors associated with bullying phenomenon among pre-adolescents attending first-grade secondary schools of Palermo, Italy, and a comparative systematic literature review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Bullying is an intentional and repetitive act of physical or psychological aggression, where the aggressor is more powerful than the victim (Olweus 1993 ). Meta-analytic studies have confirmed the marked prevalence of and risk factors associated with bullying perpetration and victimization among children and adolescents in school (Modecki et al. 2014 ). In a recent survey conducted in 79 countries with over 300,000 participants, 30% of the adolescent respondents reported that they had been victims of bullying in the past 30 days (Elgar et al. 2015 ). In India, research on bullying is scarce, certainly in proportion to its population size, as well as socio-cultural diversity (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ; Smith et al. 2018 ). The vast adolescent population provides ample opportunity and resources to further our understanding in the field of bullying. The disparities seen in India in terms of socio-cultural factors such as SES, religion, caste, gender, and color, which have been recognized as typical to the Indian context (Panda and Gupta 2004 ), may aid in breeding an imbalance of power, an underlying element of bullying (Olweus 1993 ). Moreover, given the diverse socio-cultural context of India, and its structural incongruence with western cultures (Charak and Koot 2015 ), literature from western countries may not be generalizable to the Indian population, thus requiring scientific attention to examine the role of these factors specifically in India (Smith et al. 2018 ).

Through the current review, we aim to provide researchers a notion of challenges that need to be addressed in future studies on bullying and victimization in India. Systematic reviews are of importance, because they closely follow a scientific and step-by-step approach, with an aim of limiting systematic errors or bias, and particularly seek to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies to elucidate knowledge and advanced understanding of the topic at hand (Petticrew and Roberts 2008 ). The present systematic review focuses on traditional bullying and victimization among adolescents in schools in India, highlighting the following specifics: (a) methodological characteristics of included studies, (b) prevalence estimates of bullying behavior, (c) forms of bullying, (d) risk factors, and (e) consequences of bullying. Specifically, we examine the psychometric properties of the instruments adopted in the included studies from India, as well as methodological characteristics including design and data collection, sample size and sampling procedures of the included studies, and characteristics of bullying behavior distinctive to the Indian context.

Guidelines provided by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) for conducting systematic reviews were followed in the present study. A systematic search of bibliographic electronic databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed in May 2020. The following terms formed the basis of the search strategy: “bullying” OR “peer victim*” OR “bullied” OR “bully” OR “school harassment*” OR “ragging” OR “school violence*” AND “India” OR “Indian” OR “Hindi”. No date limit was set for the search. Our search was not limited to published articles; book chapters, dissertations, unpublished articles, and posters were also eligible. A flow diagram of the search results is provided in Fig. 1 . Only studies that focused on bullying by peers and the resulting victimization at school were included. Articles on online bullying or cyberbullying were excluded. There were too few studies on cyberbullying in India to provide a meaningful analysis, especially when such an analysis should also deal with recent concerns about cyberbullying studies (e.g., Wolke et al. 2017 ). Non-empirical studies that did not include quantifiable data (for instance, book reviews) were excluded as we focus on only empirical research in the current review. Six studies used interviews to gather data; for instance, Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) used Olweus’s ( 1996 ) pre-tested semi-structure interview to collect data on bullying and victimization in their study. The answers to these interviews were quantified and used in statistical analyses, and therefore, we included the articles in the current review. Studies on Indian children who live outside of India were excluded. Because we focused on adolescents in school, the age of students in included studies should range between 10 and 19 years. For studies on students whose ages only partly overlapped with this intended range, we applied the rule that the average age should fall within the intended range and the lowest and highest age should be within 2 years of the intended age limits. Two studies did not provide a definitive age range of the participants included in their study (Patel et al. 2017 ; Schäfer et al. 2018 ); however, the studies indicate that the participants were from grade 8 to 10 (who are typically 12 to 15 years old), thereby qualifying for inclusion in the present review. Three studies did not provide the mean age of the participants in their study though they specify the age range of the participants (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ), and because the lower limit or higher limit of the provided age range in these three study fell within 2 years of 11–19 years old, we have included them in the present review. Eventually, 37 studies were included in the final review.

Search results for the systematic review

Methodological Characteristics of Included Studies

Design and data collection.

Of the 37 studies that were included, two were longitudinal studies (Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), two were experimental studies with pre- and post-test intervention designs (Sharma et al. 2020 ; Shinde et al. 2018 , 2020 ), whereas the others were cross-sectional studies. Seven of the 37 studies used peer-reports, 21 studies used self-reports, two studies used both self- and peer-reports (Chakrabartty and Gupta 2016 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), whereas six studies used structured or semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions to collect data on bullying and victimization (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Malhi et al. 2014 , 2015 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Munni and Malhi 2006 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ). One study used a photo-story method (Skrzypiec et al. 2015 ), where participants were invited to use a photograph or picture to illustrate their opinions or experiences of bullying.

Psychometric Properties

Psychometric properties of the scales or interviewing approaches used in the studies have been reported in 22 of the 37 studies. Four studies reported the reliability and validity of the original scale (Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Menon and Hannah-Fisher 2019 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Samanta et al. 2012 ), but did not report psychometric properties based on the Indian sample, while five studies reported neither the psychometric properties of the original scale nor its generalizability to the Indian sample (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ; Sharma et al. 2017 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ). Two studies used a scale developed by the authors of the study; however, psychometric properties were not reported (Kelly et al. 2016 ; Prakash et al. 2017 ). Four studies did not provide a clear description of the method of data collection, and the validity of the approach was not defined (Malhi et al. 2014 , 2015 ; Munni and Malhi 2006 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ). Seven studies specified that the instrument used to assess bullying behavior was an English language questionnaire, while 10 studies used either existing translations or translations created by the authors of the study, of English scales into Indian regional languages. Two studies used English instruments and orally explained the translation in Punjabi (Lee et al. 2018 ) or translated the difficult words to Hindi (Malik and Mehta 2016 ), and one study used English and Hindi language translations of the scales (Thakkar et al. 2020 ).

Of the 37 studies, 25 studies used a convenience or purposive sampling approach to recruit participants. One study used a proportionate random sampling approach to recruit participants (Kelly et al. 2016 ); one study used a two-stage cluster sampling approach (Swain et al. 2014 ); one used a multi-stage sampling design (Chakrabartty and Gupta 2016 ); six studies reported using a random sampling method for selecting either schools or participants (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ), but only one of them reported how the school sample was randomized (by draw of lots; Sethi et al. 2019 ). Two studies used a randomized control design to allocate participants to experimental or control groups, where Prakash et al. ( 2017 ) used a cluster randomized control design, and the intervention study by Shinde et al. ( 2018 ) used randomized and masked groups for each of three study groups. One study used a quasi-experimental design, where of the two participating schools, one was randomly assigned to the intervention group, and the other was assigned to the control group (Sharma et al. 2020 ). Of the 37 studies included in the review, 17 studies had a sample size of less than 300 participants, nine studies had a sample size of between 300 and 500 participants, whereas 11 studies had a sample size larger than 500 participants.

The articles widely differed in their statistical reporting practices, and therefore, the amount of statistical information provided in the below sections and Table 1 varies per reported study. Time frames of bullying and victimization prevalence estimates are reported in the below sections if they were specified in the included studies. Percentages are rounded off without decimals.

Prevalence Studies

Eight studies focused on the prevalence of bullying in India, while 14 others provided descriptive statistics or percentages for sample participants that qualified as bullies or victims in their study. Of these, five studies provided the participants with a definition of bullying for peer nomination estimates of bullying and victimization in their research (Goossens et al. 2018 ; Khatri 1996 ; Lee et al. 2018 ; Skrzypiec et al. 2018a ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ). Studies from the same city or region in India were scarce, and reports inconsistent. We found that bullying perpetration estimates ranged from 7% (Thakkar et al. 2020 ) to 31% (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ), and bullying victimization ranged from 9% (Thakkar et al. 2020 ) to 80% (Maji et al. 2016 ), across studies. For instance, Maji et al. ( 2016 ) found that only 38 of 273 adolescents were not bullied, resulting in a dominant 80% students qualifying as victims of bullying. Next to region differences in prevalence, estimates may be related to the reporter used. Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) found higher prevalence rates for bullying for self-reports than for parent or guardian interviews, whereas Thakkar et al. ( 2020 ) found higher prevalence estimates for bullying and victimization for peer reports than for self-reports. Findings as regards prevalence and other findings or aspects reviewed of each study are reported in Table 1 .

Forms of Bullying

It was observed that name-calling or using bad words were common forms of bullying observed among adolescents next to physical bullying. For instance, Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) reported that the most common types of bullying were teasing and giving discriminatory or offensive labels and nick names to others. Similarly, Malhi et al. ( 2014 ) reported that 16% of their sample were victims of direct bullying or physical bullying and 34% were victims of name-calling. Skrzypiec et al. ( 2015 ) showed that caste-based bullying was reported by students and that for females, sexual harassment or “eve-teasing” was a common occurrence.

Risk Factors for Bullying and Victimization

Thirteen studies from India focus on the risk factors and correlates of bullying and victimization. Risk factors refer to variables that have the potential to increase or decrease the likelihood of bullying behaviors occurring (Olweus 1996 ), whereas correlates of bullying behaviors focus on factors that are significantly associated with, and co-occur with, bullying behaviors. Risk factors for bullying and victimization identified through the review were body weight (Patel et al. 2017 ), religion (Thakkar et al. 2020 ), and age (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ), and factors that were found to be significantly correlated to bullying behaviors were personality traits (neuroticism; Donat et al. 2012 ), academic performance (Patel et al. 2017 ), urban/rural setting (Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Samanta et al. 2012 ), and father’s education level (Sethi et al. 2019 ). Factors that were found to be risks or correlates of bullying behavior in various studies included in the review were caste-system of India (Kelly et al. 2016 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), socio-economic status (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ), and gender differences.

Studies focusing on the caste system of India reported contradictory findings ranging from “General” caste students experiencing lower harassment (Kelly et al. 2016 ), “General” caste students experiencing more victimization (Thakkar et al. 2020 ), to no differences between castes (Khatri  1996 ). As regards the role of religion, Thakkar et al. ( 2020 ) reported that non-Hindu children were significantly more likely to classify as victims than Hindu children. For SES, Malhi et al. ( 2015 ) found a significant relationship between SES and victimization, with low SES students scoring higher on physical victimization, whereas high SES students scored higher on relational victimization. For gender comparison, although not fully consistent, most studies within India reported that boys scored higher than girls on bullying perpetration and bullying victimization (Narayanan and Betts 2014 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Pronk et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ; Sharma et al. 2017 ; Swain et al. 2014 ). Age was also found to have some, though inconsistent, relationship with bullying behavior in school (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ).

Consequences of Bullying

Being bullied was found to be associated with anxiety, depression, and preferring to stay alone (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ). Also, bullied children were more likely to report symptoms such as school phobia, vomiting, catastrophizing, self-blaming, and sleep disturbances (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ). Bully-victims had higher risk of conduct problems, hyperactivity, and academic difficulties, and while bullies were found to be better at academics, they had high self-esteem, and higher risk of hyperactivity and conduct problems (Malhi et al. 2014 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ).

Based on the syntheses of studies included in our review, we draw the following conclusions: (a) limitations in methodological characteristics of studies were identified with regard to sampling, instrumentation, data collection processes, and presentation of findings, and thus, conclusions from the included studies must be considered cautiously; (b) bullying happens in India, as it does internationally, though the range of prevalence estimates varies widely across studies; (c) name-calling, using bad words and other forms of relational and social bullying are common in India, and physical bullying is also prevalent; (d) risk factors for bullying and victimization in India show some factors that are typical to the Indian context, for example, caste; and (e) bullying is associated with adverse consequences for both, the aggressor and the victim, in India.

The current review notes that bullying is widely spread in India. However, available prevalence estimates vary largely across India, for bullying perpetration and for victimization. India is a geographically vast country, with enormous differences in regional socio-demographics (Charak and Koot 2015 ), thereby constraining prevalence estimates to stratified regions. Scholars have noted that homogeneity within culture in India, like in many other countries, cannot be assumed (Panda and Gupta 2004 ). Thus, generalizing regional prevalence estimates to be representative across India is questionable, calling attention to the need to conduct cross-regional and cross-cultural comparative studies of bullying behavior within the country.

Furthermore, the type of instruments and their psychometric properties impact the findings of a study (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ), thereby not only making prevalence estimates from studies in the present review questionable but also warranting caution to conclusions. Also, conclusions about similarities or differences between the Indian and Western contexts require that metric invariance first be established to allow cross-ethnic and cross-cultural comparisons (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ). Of the 37 studies included in the present review, 22 studies provided descriptions of the psychometric properties of the instruments used, while 15 studies did not report the properties of instruments in their study raising concerns about comparability across studies in terms of instruments used. Furthermore, most studies on bullying in India adopted a quantitative method of data collection, where only 6 out of the included 37 in the present review used a qualitative approach to collect data for their research. The concerns about validity are increased by the over reliance on self-reports; we found that only 7 of the 37 studies used peer-reports, and 2 studies used self- as well as informant reports. In self-rating procedures, pupils tend to underestimate their aggressive behavior and emphasize prosocial behavior on account of social desirability (Salmivalli et al. 1996 ). There is an urgent need to validate and standardize instruments, with special attention to peer reports that assess bullying behaviors and establish their generalizability to Indian samples, to attain unbiased reports of bullying behavior in India (Sousa and Rojjanasrirat 2011 ).

Furthermore, only few studies included a sample that is sizable enough to provide firm, stable conclusions (Naing et al. 2006 ), and thus, the basis for the generalizability of the reports on the prevalence is very narrow. Ioannidis ( 2005 ) asserted that the smaller the sample sizes in a study, the smaller the power of the study, and consequently the higher the likelihood of the research findings to be affected by bias. Thus, we emphasize the need to conduct more studies across India, with proportional sample sizes for objective, less biased conclusions regarding bullying behavior. Also, the purposive selection of participants in 25 of the 37 included studies poses a potential threat to the validity of findings. In future studies, random sampling approaches should be used to study bullying in India.

Furthermore, we observe that there are only two longitudinal studies from India (Nguyen et al. 2019 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ). Longitudinal studies help disentangle antecedents and consequents, to estimate the inter-individual variability in intra-individual (or within-person) patterns of change (Curran et al. 2010 ), allowing investigations of the sequence of occurrence of bullying with its risks and outcomes. Additionally, several studies in the present review report the adverse effects of bullying; however, the magnitude of these effects remains unclear. Only two of the 37 included studies were experimental studies with pre- and post-test intervention designs (Sharma et al. 2020 ; Shinde et al. 2018 , 2020 ), which also underlines the urgent need to conduct fundamental indigenous research on the topic of bullying behaviors so that future research focusing on effective and tailor-cut interventions can be modeled for the Indian context. Also, given that most studies included were cross-sectional, cause and effect reasoning for bullying behavior remains elusive in India, and warrants further attention.

Lastly, we emphasize that risk factors of bullying need to be studied in light of the Indian culture to understand its meaning and relevance in the culture (Smith et al. 2018 ). In western literature as well, several recent studies have indicated a growing need to study bullying in relation to its broader socio-cultural context (Graham 2016 ). This is imperative in the Indian context given the contextual-development perspective (Chen and French 2008 ), which suggests that in collectivistic countries like India, context is more likely to affect evaluations of socially acceptable behavior and experiences, rather than individual attributes. Given the diversity and population density of India, considerable disparities and inequalities co-exist between cultures and also within the sub-groups of particular cultures (Panda and Gupta 2004 ). For instance, factors such as caste, dissimilarities between urban and rural youth, and the range of SES as observed in India can help in better, more deeply understanding bullying.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

This review contributes valuable findings in the field of bullying and victimization in India. However, it has been noted that conducting research in India comes with its own set of logistical and contextual challenges (Smith et al. 2018 ), and thus, the conclusions drawn through the review must be considered with due caution given methodological limitations of the included studies. The quality of research conducted in India has scope of improvement in terms of methodological rigor, data collection processes, instrumentation, and presentation of the findings.

The present study is limited in capacity as it does not include a report on cyberbullying, and thus, future research on the topic of cyberbullying is necessitated within the Indian context. Furthermore, terms such as “aggression” and “discrimination” were not used as search terms in the current study. However, bullying is a form of aggression, and discrimination could be, in some cases, strongly tied to bullying (Verkuyten and Thijs 2002 ). Future studies should pay more attention to the relations between bullying and discrimination.

In contrast to the large body of research on bullying from western countries where findings have been reproduced with a delimited adolescent population insistently, data from India is scanty. India accommodates the largest adolescent population in the world, providing a potential reservoir of relatively untapped resources that could provide in-depth knowledge of causes and consequences of bullying and victimization. Given its special cultural context, there is considerable scope to scrutinize cultural contexts of bullying behavior in India that could assist in revealing novel insights, such as the role of socio-economic distance between different sects of society in low to middle income countries. Such insights might facilitate the conception of dynamic intervention designs for not only the Indian population but also for western populations. Future studies that compare how bullying happens in the western and Indian context would also help shed further light on this topic.

Study 3 (Correia et al. 2009 ) and 4 (Donat et al. 2012 ) have the same Indian sample in their studies. However, the variables examining correlates and consequences of bullying are different in the studies, and thus for the purpose of our review, we include both studies.

Study 8 by Khatri and Kupersmidt ( 2003 ) is based on a dissertation thesis submitted to University of North Carolina by the first author in 1996. For the purpose of our review, we consider the dissertation and the journal article as one inclusion since the participants as well as bullying reports are the same for both.

Study 19 (Nguyen et al. 2017 ) and 20 (Nguyen et al. 2019 ) have the same Indian sample in their studies. However, the former paper focuses on prevalence and forms of bullying and victimization, whereas the latter one examines psychosocial outcomes of victimization, and thus, we include both studies separately in the present review.

Study 32 includes reports from two articles (Shinde et al. 2018 ; Shinde et al. 2020 ). The studies use an intervention design with the same sample, and include reports after 12-month follow-up and 17-month follow-up of the design, both of which have been reported in point 32 in the present review.

Study 35 (Suresh and Tipandjan 2012 ) uses a retrospective bullying questionnaire with undergraduate college students. As the study focuses on bullying behavior in school retrospectively with adolescents, we included the study in the present review.

Articles marked with an asterisk (*) in the refernce list are the studies that have been included for synthesis in the present review.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 , 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bond, L., Wolfe, S., Tollit, M., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (2007). A comparison of the Gatehouse Bullying Scale and the Peer Relations Questionnaire for students in secondary school. Journal of School Healt h, 77, 75–79. ​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00170.x .

*Bowker, J. C., Markovic, A., Cogswell, A., & Raja, R. (2012). Moderating effects of aggression on the associations between social withdrawal subtypes and peer difficulties during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 995–1007.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2013). CDC-YRBS-Questionnaires and item rationales – adolescent and school health. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/questionnaire_rationale.htm . Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

*Chakrabartty, S. N., & Gupta, R. (2016). Test validity and number of response categories: a case of bullying scale. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42, 344–353.

Google Scholar  

Charak, R., & Koot, H. M. (2015). Severity of maltreatment and personality pathology in adolescents of Jammu, India: a latent class approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 50 , 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.010 .

Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093606 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Correia, I., Kamble, S. V., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world and well-being of bullies, victims and defenders: a study with Portuguese and Indian students. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 22 , 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800902729242 .

Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11 , 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248371003699969 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

*Donat, M., Umlauft, S., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V. (2012). Belief in a just world, teacher justice, and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21421 .

Elgar, F. J., McKinnon, B., Walsh, S. D., Freeman, J., Donnelly, P. D., de Matos, M. G., et al. (2015). Structural determinants of youth bullying and fighting in 79 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57 , 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.007 .

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_08 .

*Goossens, F., Pronk, J., Lee, N., Olthof, T., Schäfer, M., Stoiber, M. . . . Kaur, S. (2018). Bullying, defending and victimization in Western Europe and India: similarities and differences. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian Perspectives. (pp. 146–165). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Gothwal, V. K., Sumalini, R., Irfan, S. M., Giridhar, A., & Bharani, S. (2013). Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire: evaluation in visually impaired. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry , 90 , 828–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182959b52 .

Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory Into Practice, 55 , 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148988 .

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, C., Vivolo, A.M., 2011. Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration and bystander experiences; A compedium of assessment tools. Centres for Disease Control and National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA.

Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2 , e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 .

Kazdin, A. E. (1996). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. California: Sage Publications.

*Kelly, O., Krishna, A., & Bhabha, J. (2016). Private schooling and gender justice: an empirical snapshot from Rajasthan, India’s largest state. International Journal of Educational Development, 46, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.10.004 .

*Khatri, P. (1996). Aggression, peer victimization, and social relationships among rural Indian youth (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

*Khatri, P., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2003). Aggression, peer victimization, and social relationships among Indian youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000056 .

*Kshirsagar, V. Y., Agarwal, R., & Bavdekar, S. B. (2007). Bullying in schools: prevalence and short-term impact. Indian Pediatrics, 44 , 25–28.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Lee, N., Pronk, J., Olthof, T., Sandhu, D., Kaur, S., & Goossens, F. (2018). Defining the relationship between risk-taking and bullying during adolescence: a cross-cultural comparison. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 166–185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Maji, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Ghosh, D. (2016). Cognitive coping and psychological problems among bullied and non-bullied adolescents. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 11 , 387–396.

*Malhi, P., Bharti, B., & Sidhu, M. (2014). Aggression in schools: psychosocial outcomes of bullying among Indian adolescents. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 81, 1171–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-014-1378-7 .

*Malhi, P., Bharti, B., & Sidhu, M. (2015). Peer victimization among adolescents: relational and physical aggression in Indian schools. Psychological Studies, 60 , 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-014-0283-5 .

*Malik, A., & Mehta, M. (2016). Bullying among adolescents in an Indian school. Psychological Studies, 61 , 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-016-0368-4 .

*Menon, M., & Hannah-Fisher, K. (2019). Felt gender typicality and psychosocial adjustment in Indian early adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43 , 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418820669 .

Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3 , 111–130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857 .

Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 , 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 .

*Munni, R., & Malhi, P. (2006). Adolescent violence exposure, gender issues and impact. Indian Pediatrics, 43 , 607–612.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer‐victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A .

Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1 , 9–14.

*Nambiar, P., Jangam, K., Roopesh, B. N., & Bhaskar, A. (2019). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-esteem in children with mild intellectual disability and borderline intellectual functioning in regular and special schools: an exploratory study in urban Bengaluru. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629519831573 .

*Narayanan, A., & Betts, L. R. (2014). Bullying behaviors and victimization experiences among adolescent students: the role of resilience. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.834290 .

*Nguyen, A. J., Bradshaw, C., Townsend, L., & Bass, J. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of bullying victimization in four low-resource countries. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517709799 .

*Nguyen, A. J., Bradshaw, C. P., Townsend, L., Gross, A., & Bass, J. (2019). It gets better: attenuated associations between latent classes of peer victimization and longitudinal psychosocial outcomes in four low-resource countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 , 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0935-1 .

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

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what can we do. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10114 .

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 , 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195509 .

Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2004). Mapping cultural diversity within India: a meta-analysis of some recent studies. Global Business Review, 5 , 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215090400500103 .

Parada, R. H. (2000). Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of participant roles in bullying and victimization of adolescence: An interim test manual and a research monograph: A test manual.  Sydney, Australia: Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, University of Western Sydney.

*Patel, H. A., Varma, J., Shah, S., Phatak, A., & Nimbalkar, S. M. (2017). Profile of bullies and victims among urban school-going adolescents in Gujarat. Indian Pediatrics , 54 , 841–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-017-1146-7 .

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.807 .

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.

*Prakash, R., Beattie, T., Javalkar, P., Bhattacharjee, P., Ramanaik, S., Thalinja, R. . . . Isac, S. (2017). Correlates of school dropout and absenteeism among adolescent girls from marginalized community in north Karnataka, south India. Journal of Adolescence, 61 , 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.007 .

*Pronk, J., Lee, N. C., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., Kaur, S., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2017). Associations between Dutch and Indian adolescents’ bullying role behavior and peer-group status: cross-culturally testing an evolutionary hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 , 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416679743 .

*Ramya, S. G., & Kulkarni, M. L. (2011). Bullying among school children: prevalence and association with common symptoms in childhood. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 78 , 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-010-0219-6 .

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924646 .

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116 .

Ruchkin, V., Schwab-Stone, M., & Vermeiren, R. (2004). Social and Health Assessment (SAHA): Psychometric development summary. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T .

*Samanta, A., Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, S., & Dasgupta, A. (2012). Mental health, protective factors and violence among male adolescents: a comparison between urban and rural school students in West Bengal . Indian Journal of Public Health, 56, 155–158. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-557X.99916 .

*Sarkhel, S., Sinha, V. K., Arora, M., & Desarkar, P. (2006). Prevalence of conduct disorder in school children of Kanke. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.31579 .

Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Kay, D., ... & Sheffield, J. (2010). School‐based prevention of depression: a randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 199–209. ​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02136.x .

Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora‐Merchán, J. A., Singer, M. M., & Van der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22 , 379–394. ​ https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510041552756 .

*Schäfer, M., Stoiber, M., Bramböck, T., Letsch, H., Starch, K., & Sundaram, S. (2018). Participant roles in bullying: what data from Indian classes can tell us about the phenomenon. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 130–145). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Sethi, S., Setiya, R., & Kumar, A. (2019). Prevalence of school bullying in middle school children in urban Rohtak, State Haryana, India. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 15, 13–28.

*Sharma, D., Kishore, J., Sharma, N., & Duggal, M. (2017). Aggression in schools: cyberbullying and gender issues. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2017.05.018 .

*Sharma, D., Mehari, K. R., Kishore, J., Sharma, N., & Duggal, M. (2020). Pilot Evaluation of Setu, a School-Based Violence Prevention Program Among Indian Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619899480 .

*Shinde, S., Weiss, H. A., Varghese, B., Khandeparkar, P., Pereira, B., Sharma, A. . . . Patel, V. (2018). Promoting school climate and health outcomes with the SEHER multi-component secondary school intervention in Bihar, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 392, 2465–2477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31615-5 .

*Shinde, S., Weiss, H. A., Khandeparkar, P., Pereira, B., Sharma, A., Gupta, R., ... & Patel, V. (2020). A multicomponent secondary school health promotion intervention and adolescent health: an extension of the SEHER cluster randomised controlled trial in Bihar, India. PLoS Medicine, 17, e1003021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003021 .

*Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., & Sandhu, D. (2015). Using the Photostory Method to Understand the Cultural Context of Youth Victimisation in the Punjab. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 7, 52–68.

*Skrzypiec, G., Alinsug, E., Nasiruddin, U. A., Andreou, E., Brighi, A., Didaskalou, E. . . . Yang, C. C. (2018a). Self-reported harm of adolescent peer aggression in three world regions. Child Abuse and Neglect, 85, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.030 .

*Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Sandhu, D., & Kaur, S. (2018b). Bullying or peer aggression? A pilot study with Punjabi adolescents. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 45–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. K., Sundaram, S., Spears, B. A., Blaya, C., Schäfer, M., & Sandhu, D. (Eds.). (2018). Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17 , 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x .

*Suresh, S., & Tipandjan, A. (2012). School bullying victimization and college adjustment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38, 68–73.

*Swain, S., Mohanan, P., Sanah, N., Sharma, V., & Ghosh, D. (2014). Risk behaviors related to violence and injury among school-going adolescents in Karnataka, Southern India. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 26, 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0334 .

Tarshis, T. P., & Huffman, L. C. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Peer Interactions in Primary School (PIPS) questionnaire. J ournal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28 , 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.DBP.0000267562.11329.8f .

*Thakkar, N., van Geel, M., Malda, M., Rippe, R. C. A., & Vedder, P. (2020). Bullying and psychopathic traits: a longitudinal study with adolescents in India. Psychology of Violence, 10, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000277 .

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Development, 78, 1843–1854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x .

Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: the effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25 , 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870120109502 .

Wolke, D., Lee, K., & Guy, A. (2017). Cyberbullying: a storm in a teacup? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26 , 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-0954-6 .

World Health Organization. Global school-based student health survey (GSHS). (2001). Available from: https://www.who.int/entity/chp/gshs/methodology/en/index.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education and Child Studies, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333, AK, Leiden, The Netherlands

Niharika Thakkar, Mitch van Geel & Paul Vedder

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niharika Thakkar .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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

Thakkar, N., van Geel, M. & Vedder, P. A Systematic Review of Bullying and Victimization Among Adolescents in India. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 3 , 253–269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00081-4

Download citation

Published : 07 September 2020

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00081-4

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

• Victimization
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 05 February 2022

Risk factors of school bullying and its relationship with psychiatric comorbidities: a literature review

• Gellan K. Ahmed   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5830-4117 1 , 2 ,
• Nabil A. Metwaly 3 ,
• Khaled Elbeh 1 ,
• Marwa Salah Galal 4 &
• Islam Shaaban 3  

The Egyptian Journal of Neurology, Psychiatry and Neurosurgery volume  58 , Article number:  16 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

37k Accesses

3 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

School bullying is described as violence to other people. It is perpetrated at schools or other activities when the power of a student or a group of students is used to injure others or other groups.

The prevalence of school bullying is varied from one country to another. There are many types of bullying, such as physical, verbal, social relations, psychological, sexual, and cyber-bullying. Many risk factors could affect school bullying, especially individual, peer and parent factors. Researches found that adults who had school bullying are more vulnerable to develop future psychiatric disorders.

Conclusions

School bullying is one of the crucial problems among pupils. The wide range of the prevalence of school bullying may be due to different methodologies and the presence of many risk factors. It is recommended to have long-term researches about the student with bullying behavior. Also, prevention programs are required to increase knowledge and early detection of affected students to prevent future psychiatric disorders.

Introduction

School bullying is the most prevalent kind of youth violence that has become a significant concern for pupils and a global public health issue [ 1 ]. Bullying is defined as “a type of aggressive behavior in which someone else causes injury or discomfort intentionally and repeatedly [ 2 ].

Bully’s strength is based on physical strength, age, financial position, and social and technical competencies [ 3 ].

Bullying in school is distinct from other forms of violence, as well as from simple interpersonal conflict between students in three ways [ 4 ].

Intention to cause harm.

Repetition of the harmful acts.

The power imbalance between the bully (perpetrator of bullying) and the bullied (victim). The bullying perpetrator has an advantage over the victim, such as physical strength and size, social position, authority, and popularity.

Prevalence of bullying

Despite the intrinsically hard task of estimating the prevalence of bullying due to different measures used in different studies, researchers generally agree that bullying is a widespread and significant problem in today’s schools [ 5 ]

Studies in Arab countries

A Cairo-based study evaluating the prevalence of violence among elementary-aged schoolchildren found that public and private schools experienced different violence. For example, 76% of public school children reported experiencing physical violence, while 62% of private school children reported experiencing physical violence [ 6 ]. In 2019, another Egyptian study, done by Galal and his colleagues looked at rural schools to discover the proportion of bullies among middle and high school students. The researchers found that 9.5% of the students surveyed were bullies [ 7 ]. Another study reported prevalence rate of bullying behaviour among 280 elementary students in Sohag at Egypt was about 12.5% [ 8 ].

Few studies have been done to determine the frequency of bullying in the Arab world. According to the Global School-based Students Health Survey, middle school students in 19 low- and middle-income countries have an average rate of 34.2 percent for peer victimization, with rates of 44.2 percent in Jordan, 33.6 percent in Lebanon, 31.9 percent in Morocco, 39.1 percent in Oman, and 20.9 percent in the United Arab Emirates [ 9 ].

International prevalence of bullying

A meta-analysis of 80 studies from various countries focused on students in grades six through eight has found that bullying involvement rates can range from 9 to 98%, with the average rate being 35% [ 10 ].

Victimization rates were reported to range from 2 to 66% in China, while perpetration rates varied from 2 to 34% (Chan and Wong 2015). Another study reveals that bullying is widespread in Southeast Asian countries, as the prevalence rate was 1% to 7.7% [ 11 ].

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [ 12 ] report shows that making educational environments violence-free and creating a safe learning environment for all children is still a top priority for the world. However, according to this report, bullying and other forms of violence affect one third of young people. Still, the rates of bullying victimization differ depending on which region is in question.

Bullying comes in various ways and styles [ 13 ]

Physical bullying includes slapping, kicking, and punching.

Verbal bullying includes things such as name-calling, taunting, threatening, racial slurs, name-calling, cursing, and more.

Psychological bullyings such as harassment, intimidation, and humiliation.

Bullying in social relations Social rejection or preventing people from engaging in certain activities.

Sexual bullying Threats or sexual touching, use dirty words, or being grabby.

Cyber-bullying When someone uses texts, social networks, or hacking to ridicule or intimidate someone.

Direct and indirect bullying are the two general categories of bullying types. In the face-to-face form of bullying, there are physical attacks and verbal harassment. Indirect bullying includes social exclusion, spreading rumors, and similar passive-aggressive behaviors. Therefore, in other words, direct bullying involves aggressive tactics, such as bullying, humiliating, and ridiculing, while more subtle bullying methods are trying to hurt someone socially, get others to avoid them, and keep others in the dark about who did it [ 14 ].

Direct bullying has been observed in young children, where direct physical abuse has been substituted progressively with verbal bullying [ 15 ]. Different forms of bullying are seen as stemming from gender-based differences. Female students engage in verbal bullying more often than male students, whereas male students employ direct physical bullying [ 16 ].

In the group-related bullying process, school students are members of various social groups, and they take on multiple roles, such as bullying perpetrators, victims, and witnesses, to reinforce the hierarchy [ 17 ].

There are different roles related to both the bully and the victim, and some of these roles increase the chance that bullying will happen—these positions as [ 17 ].

Ringleader bullies: they are persons who are planning, over a long time, to harm the victim again and again.

Assistants: they are followers who aid the bully and engage in aggression against friends.

Reinforcers: these are persons who pay attention to the bully and smile or laugh during the act of bullying.

Defenders: they are persons who help the victim to feel better or to intervene to stop this act.

Victims: they are the target of peer attack and feel they cannot defend themselves easily from a bully.

Bystanders observe students: who are both bullies and victims

Risk factors of school bullying (see Table 1 )

Individual risk factors.

Since girls and boys can both be bullies and victims of bullying, research has found that boys are more likely than girls to be bullied [ 18 ]. The gender disparity in bullying is more significant for direct actions of bullying such as physical assault or threats. However, this relationship is less significant for indirect bullyings such as rumor propagation or social isolation [ 19 ].

Nearly 24% of females reported being bullied, while only 18% of males reported this. A similar pattern occurred with rumors: 15% of females compared to 9% of males reported being targeted. However, males (5%) have reported threats of harm more than females (3%) (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016).

Grade level

The rate of bullying decreases as children age, from primary to high school [ 20 ]. Bullying is most common in middle school, but research shows that it is at its highest in schools as students prepare to enter high school (i.e., between elementary and mid-school and middle schools and high school)[ 21 ].

Bullying involvement is an intercultural and ethnic phenomenon. For example, research has shown that school students who belong to an ethnic minority are more likely than an ethnic majority to be harassed [ 22 ].

Socioeconomic status

Higher levels of victimization have involved increased disparities between socioeconomic status within one country [ 23 ].

Bodybuilding and physical characteristics

Powerful men tended to be bullies, according to [ 19 ]. According to Unnever and Cornell (2003), bullies in the United States are taller and more robust than their peers. Male students detected a significant quadratic association (U-Shaped) between the bodyweight status and the harassment, while female students did not [ 24 ].

These results imply that underweight and obese boys are more likely than their average-weight peers to become bullied, reflecting the theory of conflict that a bullying victim is often different from the majority [ 25 ].

Externalizing behavior

Being a bully is commonly seen to be associated with externalizing behavior (e.g., aggressive, defiant, disruptive, or delinquent), whereas being a victim is associated with internalizing behavior (e.g., anxiety, depression, or poor self-esteem) [ 18 ].

Self-esteem

There was a widespread belief that low self-esteem leads to aggression, including bullying. Despite the fact that (weakly) negative self-related insight is linked to bullying, the chances of being a pure unvictimized bully are not greater [ 18 ]. Research suggests that narcissism, arrogance, and callous emotional traits (such as a lack of empathy and shame) are more closely linked to bullying than previously assumed [ 26 ].

Popularity and social skills

A "social relationship problem" has been used to describe bullying [ 27 ]. Indeed, victims, bully-victims, and some bullies have social skills deficiencies [ 18 ].

Even if many classmates do not necessarily like them personally, bullies can be seen among their peers as popular, influential, and “cool” [ 28 ]. In addition, bully members are often central and have friends in their peer networks. Like other people who engage in and affiliate with similar behaviors [ 29 ], teenagers can strengthen the coercive behavior of the other.

Academic achievement

The connection between bullying and academic performance is difficult. Previous studies vary whether bullies are slightly low or significantly low in school performance. The study investigated 46 schools’ exam results and found that peer bullying was associated with lower achievement, especially if teased students missed school and missed educational opportunities [ 30 ]. Three African nations included 12–16 years who were enrolled in a Trend Studies in Mathematics and Science class. According to their findings, bullying is both a significant problem in all three countries, and is a significant and common factory related to poor academic performance [ 31 ].

Physical disability

Students with conduct disorders are more likely to be bullied but bullying can be retaliatory in response to bullying [ 32 ].

Peer group risk factors

Peer group norms

If members of a peer group participate in bullying, the others experience it. In addition, students who were bully perpetrators were more likely to come from socially significant peer groups [ 33 ].

Delinquency

The influence of peers was a significant predictor of participation in harassment; Negative peer influence was linked to bullying and being victimized [ 18 ]. In addition, research shows that having a delinquent record (i.e., vandalism, membership in a gang, and bringing a weapon to school) correlates with higher levels of bullying and victimization [ 34 ].

High pro-social behavior and low social anxiety benefit academic success, because it helps students avoid getting bullied or victimized and thus succeed academically [ 35 ].

Alcohol/drug use

Bullying and alcohol/drug abuse are known to be linked. For example, a study of adults in the United States discovered that bullying was significantly associated with lifetime alcohol and drug use. Thus, involvement in bullying is linked to both concurrent and future alcohol/drug use [ 36 ].

School risk factors

School climate

Adults play an important role in creating a positive or negative environment in schools. If the school environment is not good and unhealthy, bullying and related problems are widespread [ 37 ]. Bullying and victimization, on the other hand, are less prevalent when students are challenged and motivated to do well in school [ 38 ].

Teacher attitude

The role of the teacher is critical in the fight against bullying in the classroom [ 39 ]. Teachers' responses to bullying will vary depending on their individual beliefs and attitudes.

Some teachers regard bullying as a normal behavior that may aid children in developing social skills and believe it is unnecessary to intervene, because they do not sympathize with the victim [ 40 ].

Furthermore, teachers will not likely interfere with bullying when they perceive that conduct is not bullying or when there are other occurrences of hidden forms such as relational or verbal bullying or when teachers do not perceive the behavior as bullying [ 41 ].

Classroom characteristics

Schools are an amalgamation of many classrooms and there is an incentive for reducing bullying and victimization in healthy a classroom environment. A study identified four key characteristics that predict bullying in classrooms: (1) negative peer relationships, (2) poor teacher–student relationships, (3) a lack of self-control, and (4) poor problem-solving abilities among students [ 42 ].

School belonging

Those who bullied others in primary school had lower rates of school affiliation than those who had been or had not been bullied victims [ 43 , 44 ].

Parental risk factors

Parental characteristics

Researchers have found that bullies are more likely to come from families, where there is little cohesion, little warmth, absent fathers, high power needs, and a tolerance for aggressive behavior. They may also have experienced physical abuse as well as being from low socioeconomic status families with authoritarian parents [ 45 ].

The mothers of the male victims were overprotective, controlling, restricting, coddling, overinvolved, and warm, whereas their fathers were aloof, critical, absent, indifferent, negligent, and domineering. Female victims, on the other hand, had hostile moms who denied or rejected affection, threatened and dominated them, and fathers who were careless and carefree [ 18 ].

Family discord

Being raised in a home, where the parents fought, drank, used drugs, and were physically or sexually abusive predicted bullying and bullying victimization in children [ 43 , 44 ]. A lack of parental guidance and conflict in the home are common themes among bullies [ 18 ].

Community risk factors

Neighborhoods.

Neighborhood characteristics have a significant impact on bullying behavior [ 18 ]. For example, bullying thrives in neighborhoods that are unsafe, aggressive, and unorganized. Conversely, living in a safe, connected neighborhood was associated with lower levels of bullying and victimization [ 7 ].

Societal risk factors

Decades of research have been conducted to determine whether exposure to violent video games, television, and film is linked to higher levels of aggression. Indeed, meta-analyses of these studies show that media violence is associated with aggressive and antisocial behavior [ 46 ].

Diagnosis of bullying behavior

Criteria of bullying behavior.

Psychometric Scales for the bullying behavior

Criteria of bullying behavior.

A list of features used to identify bullying [ 47 ]: Bullying is widely accepted to be a subcategory of aggressive behavior defined by the three minimum criteria listed below:

Intent to hurt (i.e., the harm caused by bullying is deliberate, not accidental).

Power disparity (i.e., bullying includes a real or perceived power inequity between the bully and the victim).

Long-term repetition (i.e., more than once with the potential to occur multiple times).

To supplement the above-mentioned criteria, the following two additional criteria have been proposed:

victim distress (victim suffers mild to severe psychological, social or physical trauma).

incitement (bullying is motivated by perceived benefits of their aggressive behaviors).

Scales for the bully: There are many scales used to assessed bully behavior, such as.

Bullying behavior Scale for children and adolescents [ 48 ]: It is 40 items that used to measure the frequency of self-reported perpetration in different forms of Bullying for Youth 8–18 years.

Aggression Scale [ 49 ]: It is 11 items that used to assess the frequency of self-reported perpetration of teasing, pushing, or threatening others for Youth 10–15 years.

Bullying behavior Scale [ 50 ]: It is six items that are used to assess bullying behavior at schools for Youth 8–11 years.

Modified Aggression Scale [ 51 ]: It is nine items that used to assess bullying behavior and anger for Youth 10–15 years.

Scales for the victim

Gatehouse bullying Scale [ 52 ]: It is 12 items that used to assess overt and covert victimization for Youth 10–15 years.

Retrospective Bullying Questionnaire [ 53 ]: It is 44 items that used to assess the frequency, seriousness, and duration of bully victimization in primary and secondary school; bully-related psychological trauma, suicidal ideation if bullied, and bullying in college and the workplace for young adults/Adults 18–40 years.

Perception of Teasing Scale (POTS) [ 54 ]: It is 22 items that used to measure the frequency and effect of teasing and bullying for youth 17–24 years.

Scales for the bully-victim

Olweus Bullying Questionnaire: It is 39 items that used to assess the frequency of bully perpetration and victimization for Youth 11–17 years.

School life survey [ 55 ]: It is 24 items that used to assess the frequency of physical, verbal, and relational bullying as both the perpetrator and the victim for Youth 8–12 years.

School relationships Questionnaire [ 56 ]: It is 20 items used to assess the victimization and perpetration of direct and relational bullying/ aggression for Youth 6–9 years.

Illinois Bully Scale [ 57 ]: It is 18 items that used to assess the frequency of bullying behavior, fighting, and victimization by peers for youth 8–18 years.

The effects of bullying behavior

The consequences of bullying are extensive, not only to the individuals involved in these conflicts but for society more widely. Scientific research indicated that experiencing bullying has a short and long-term psychological and emotional impact on both victims and perpetrators [ 58 , 59 ]. Also, there are many effect of bullying behaviour that different if happen for childern or adolescents (see Tables 2 , 3 ).

Effects on the bully

Effects on the victim

Effects on the school community

Effect on the society

Psychiatric comorbidities with bullying

Bullying is a distressing experience that often lasts for years, persists into adulthood, and correlates with current and future psychiatric issues [ 66 ]. If the bullying (or being bullied) does not stop or interfere with functioning at school or with friends, pupils should be assessed for potential psychiatric issues [ 67 ].

Comorbidity of these disorders [such as depression, anxiety, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)] occurs among children involved in bullying [ 68 ]. At the same time, it is comparatively uncommon in nonbullied children. In addition, separation and generalized anxiety disorder, dysthymia, depression, and panic disorder may be found in the results of an examination of a child who has been the victim of bullying [ 67 ].

During adulthood, victim and bully-victims males are at an increased risk for anxiety and personality disorders characterized as histrionic and paranoid [ 69 ].

Bullying can begin early in life and persist into adulthood, leading to poor mental and physical health and compromised interpersonal relationships [ 70 ].

The consequences of childhood bullying and the correlates of bullying in adulthood can be examined through studies that use adult samples [ 71 ]. However, to date, few longitudinal studies have examined general population adult correlates of bullying.

A study in Finland followed bullied elementary school boys into adulthood. This study claimed that bullying could have significant social and psychological effects over time. Boys who bullied others showed that adults are much more prevalent than their unbullying counterparts in antisocial personality disorder, criminality, and convictions [ 72 ].

Bullying in childhood is also associated with an increased risk of substance abuse (alcohol, cannabis, and nicotine use disorder), depression, and anxiety in adulthood. In addition, the results indicate that having a psychiatric disorder can increase your risk of being bullied as a youth [ 72 ].

Suicide is the second highest cause of mortality among adolescents aged 15 to 29 [ 73 ]. Students who have been bullied are twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts and are 2.6 times more likely to attempt suicide than students who have not been bullied [ 74 ]. In addition, Suicidal conduct is reported by students, whether they are bullies, victims, or witnesses [ 73 ]. In 2014, About17.7% of school-aged kids attempted suicide due to bullying behaviour, according to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) [ 75 ].

These negative consequences highlight the importance of further research into bullying to develop effective intervention strategies. We must first comprehend violence and bullying to prevent them. Examining the individuals involved in bullying would be a good first step toward understanding.

Prevention and management

Some of these consequences can be avoided with immediate intervention and long-term follow-up. Schools, families, and communities must work together to understand bullying and its consequences, as well as to discover solutions to reduce, and eventually eliminate, bullying in schools and communities [ 60 ]. Therefore, The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) put prevention and management program to bullying behaviour (for details see Tables 4 , 5 ).

In 2018, UNICEF showed that 70% of Egyptian children aged 13–15 are bullied; as a result, Egypt adopted draught revisions to prohibit bullying [ 76 ]. Fortunately, in recent years, there have been several initiatives as well as individual attempts to combat bullying. Egypt started its first nationwide campaign in 2018, pushing children, parents, and caregivers to speak up against bullying and providing suggestions and guidance on how to deal with it [ 77 ]. In addition, the first legal judgement of its kind was given in Egypt in july,2020 with two defendants sentenced to 2 years in prison and fined EGP 100,000 (about $6,250) [ 78 ].

Anti-bullying campaign in Egypt, funded by the European Union and coordinated by the National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM), the Ministry of Education and Technical Education and The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). They want to create a safe atmosphere for kids by raising awareness about bullying and how to deal with it through a child protection programme [ 76 ]. Some issues may be needed to solve to help this program to fit Egyptian culture such as need for supervisory bodies to monitor teachers and pupils behaviour, need for educational courses for parents and teachers about bullying and having cooperation between school authorities and specialized psychiatrists to treat the problem of bullying with the presence of mental illnesses.

School bullying is one of violence form that could be a major concern for pupils and a global public. The wide range of the prevalence of school bullying may be due to different methodologies and the presence of many risk factors. It is recommended to have long-term research about the student with bullying behavior. Also, prevention programs are required to increase knowledge and early detection of affected students to prevent future psychiatric disorders.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Perception of Teasing Scale.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

National Center for Educational Statistics: Student Reports of Bullying and Cyberbullying: Results from the 2015 School Crime Supplement to the National Victimization Survey. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016056 . 2016.

American Psychological Association: Bullying. (2020). Accessed Accessed on 25–8–2020 from : https://www.apa.org/topics/bullying .

Gladden RM, Vivolo-Kantor AM, Hamburger ME, Lumpkin CD. Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. 2014

Bauman S, Del Rio A. Preservice teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios: Comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. J Educ Psychol. 2006;98(1):219.

Article   Google Scholar  

Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Marín-López I. Cyberbullying: a systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicología Educativa. 2016;22(1):5–18.

Ez-Elarab HS, Sabbour SM, Gadallah MA, Asaad TA. Prevalence and risk factors of violence among elementary school children in Cairo. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2007;82(1–2):127–46.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Galal YS, Emadeldin M, Mwafy MA. Prevalence and correlates of bullying and victimization among school students in rural Egypt. J Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2019;94(1):1–12.

Ahmed GK, Metwaly NA, Elbeh K, Galal MS, Shaaban I. Prevalence of school bullying and its relationship with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and conduct disorder: a cross-section study. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg.

Fleming LC, Jacobsen KH. Bullying among middle-school students in low and middle income countries. Health Promot Int. 2010;25(1):73–84.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Med. 2014;55(5):602–11.

Google Scholar  

Sittichai R, Smith PK. Bullying in south-east Asian countries: A review. Aggress Violent Beh. 2015;23:22–35.

United Nations Educational SaCO: School violence and bullying : Global status and trends, drivers and consequences. Paris: UNESCO. 2018. https://hivhealthclearinghouse.unesco.org/library/documents/school-violence-and-bullying-global-status-and-trends-drivers-and-consequences .

Quiroz H, Arnette J, Stephens R. Bullying in schools: Discussion activities for school communities. California: National School Safety Center; 2006.

Merrill RM, Hanson CL. Risk and protective factors associated with being bullied on school property compared with cyberbullied. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1–10.

Tsorbatzoudis H, Travlos AK, Rodafinos A. Gender and age differences in self-reported aggression of high school students. J Interpers Violence. 2013;28(8):1709–25.

Smith PK. Bullying: definition, types, causes, consequences and intervention. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2016;10(9):519–32.

Jan A, Husain S. Bullying in elementary schools: its causes and effects on students. J Educ Pract. 2015;6(19):43–56.

Cook CR, Williams KR, Guerra NG, Kim TE, Sadek S. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. Sch Psychol Q. 2010;25(2):65–83.

Farrington D, Baldry A. Individual risk factors for school bullying. Journal of aggression, conflict and peace research. 2010.

Smith PK, Madsen KC, Moody JC. What causes the age decline in reports of being bullied at school? Towards a developmental analysis of risks of being bullied. Educ Res. 1999;41(3):267–85.

Pellegrini AD, Long JD, Solberg D, Roseth C, Dupuis D. Bullying and social status during school transitions. In: Handbook of Bullying in Schools. Routledge; 2009. p. 209–20.

Jimerson SR, Swearer SM, Espelage DL. Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. 2009.

Due P, Merlo J, Harel-Fisch Y, Damsgaard MT, Soc MS, Holstein BE, et al. Socioeconomic inequality in exposure to bullying during adolescence: A comparative, cross-sectional, multilevel study in 35 countries. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(5):907–14.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Bullying, self-control, and ADHD. J Interpers Violence. 2003;18(2):129–47.

Greenleaf C, Petrie TA, Martin SB. Relationship of weight-based teasing and adolescents’ psychological well-being and physical health. J Sch Health. 2014;84(1):49–55.

Fanti KA, Kimonis ER. Bullying and victimization: the role of conduct problems and psychopathic traits. J Res Adolesc. 2012;22(4):617–31.

Pepler D, Craig W. Understanding and Addressing Bullying: An International Perspective PREVNet Series. Author House; 2008.

Reijntjes A, Vermande M, Thomaes S, Goossens F, Olthof T, Aleva L, et al. Narcissism, bullying, and social dominance in youth: a longitudinal analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2016;44(1):63–74.

Sentse M, Kiuru N, Veenstra R, Salmivalli C. A social network approach to the interplay between adolescents’ bullying and likeability over time. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(9):1409–20.

Barboza GE, Schiamberg LB, Oehmke J, Korzeniewski SJ, Post LA, Heraux CG. Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: an ecological perspective. J Youth Adolesc. 2009;38(1):101–21.

Anton-Erxleben K, Kibriya S, Zhang Y. Bullying as the main driver of low performance in schools: Evidence from Botswana, Ghana, and South Africa. 2016

Rose CA, Swearer SM, Espelage DL. Bullying and students with disabilities: the untold narrative. Focus Except Child. 2012;45(2):1–10.

Lodder GM, Scholte RH, Cillessen AH, Giletta M. Bully victimization: selection and influence within adolescent friendship networks and cliques. J Youth Adolesc. 2016;45(1):132–44.

Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Goldweber A, Johnson SL. Bullies, gangs, drugs, and school: understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity and urbanicity. J Youth Adolesc. 2013;42(2):220–34.

Brewer SL Jr. Addressing youth bullying through the whole child model. Education. 2017;138(1):41–6.

Gaete J, Tornero B, Valenzuela D, Rojas-Barahona CA, Salmivalli C, Valenzuela E, et al. Substance use among adolescents involved in bullying: a cross-sectional multilevel study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1056.

Kasen S, Johnson JG, Chen H, Crawford TN. School climate and change in personality disorder symptom trajectories related to bullying: A prospective study. Bullying in North American schools. Routledge; 2010. p. 181–201.

Pörhölä M, Almonkari M, Kunttu K. Bullying and social anxiety experiences in university learning situations. Soc Psychol Educ. 2019;22(3):723–42.

Yoon J, Bauman S. Teachers: A critical but overlooked component of bullying prevention and intervention. Theory Into Practice. 2014;53(4):308–14.

Kochenderfer-Ladd B, Pelletier ME. Teachers’ views and beliefs about bullying: Influences on classroom management strategies and students’ coping with peer victimization. J Sch Psychol. 2008;46(4):431–53.

Bilz L. On the accuracy of German teachers’ identification of pupils involved in bullying. In: 31st International Congress of Psychology, 24–29 July 2016, Yokohama, Japan. Chichester: Wiley; 2016. p. 462.

Doll B, Song S, Champion A, Jones K. Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. Bullying NAm Schools. 2011;2:147–58.

Swearer SM, Espelage DL. Expanding the social–ecological framework of bullying among youth: Lessons learned from the past and directions for the future. Bullying in north American schools. Routledge; 2010. p. 23–30.

Swearer S, Espelage DL, Vaillancourt T, Hymmel S. What can be done about school bullying? linking research to educational practice. Educ Res. 2010;39:38–47.

Duncan RD. Family relationships of bullies and victims. Bullying in North American schools: Routledge; 2010. p. 211–24.

Mares M-L, Kretz V. Media effects on children. 2015

Burger C, Strohmeier D, Spröber N, Bauman S, Rigby K. How teachers respond to school bullying: An examination of self-reported intervention strategy use, moderator effects, and concurrent use of multiple strategies. Teach Teach Educ. 2015;51:191–202.

El-Desoky M. Bullying Behavior Scale for children and adolescents. 2016.

Orpinas P, Frankowski R. The Aggression Scale: a self-report measure of aggressive behavior for young adolescents. J Early Adolesc. 2001;21(1):50–67.

Austin S, Joseph S. Assessment of bully/victim problems in 8 to 11 year-olds. Br J Educ Psychol. 1996;66(4):447–56.

Bosworth K, Espelage DL, Simon TR. Factors associated with bullying behavior in middle school students. J Early Adoles. 1999;19(3):341–62.

Bond L, Wolfe S, Tollit M, Butler H, Patton G. A comparison of the Gatehouse Bullying Scale and the Peer Relations Questionnaire for students in secondary school. J Sch Health. 2007;77(2):75–9.

Schäfer M, Korn S, Smith PK, Hunter SC, Mora-Merchán JA, Singer MM, et al. Lonely in the crowd: recollections of bullying. Br J Dev Psychol. 2004;22(3):379–94.

Thompson JK, Cattarin J, Fowler B, Fisher E. The perception of teasing scale (POTS): a revision and extension of the physical appearance related teasing scale (PARTS). J Pers Assess. 1995;65(1):146–57.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Chan JH, Myron R, Crawshaw M. The efficacy of non-anonymous measures of bullying. Sch Psychol Int. 2005;26(4):443–58.

Wolke D, Woods S, Bloomfield L, Karstadt L. The association between direct and relational bullying and behaviour problems among primary school children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Disciplines. 2000;41(8):989–1002.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Espelage DL, Holt MK. Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. J Emot Abus. 2001;2(2–3):123–42.

Gini G, Pozzoli T. Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2013;132(4):720–9.

Swearer SM, Hymel S. Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis-stress model. Am Psychol. 2015;70(4):344–53.

Wolke D, Lereya ST. Long-term effects of bullying. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(9):879–85.

Sigurdson JF, Undheim AM, Wallander JL, Lydersen S, Sund AM. The long-term effects of being bullied or a bully in adolescence on externalizing and internalizing mental health problems in adulthood. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2015;9:42.

Copeland WE, Wolke D, Angold A, Costello EJ. Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiat. 2013;70(4):419–26.

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.

Gini G, Pozzoli T. Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1059–65.

Klomek AB, Sourander A, Elonheimo H. Bullying by peers in childhood and effects on psychopathology, suicidality, and criminality in adulthood. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(10):930–41.

Kumpulainen K. Psychiatric conditions associated with bullying. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2008;20(2):121–32.

Glew G, Rivara F, Feudtner C. Bullying: Children hurting children. Pediatr Rev. 2000;21(6):183–90.

Kumpulainen K, Räsänen E, Puura K. Psychiatric disorders and the use of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggress Behav. 2001;27(2):102–10.

Coolidge FL, Segal DL, Estey AJ, Neuzil PJ. Preliminary Psychometric Properties of a Measure of Karen Horney’s Theory in Children and Adolescents.

Oliver R, Hoover JH, Hazler R. The perceived roles of bullying in small-town midwestern schools. J Couns Dev. 1994;72(4):416–20.

Ireland JL, Power CL. Attachment, emotional loneliness, and bullying behaviour: A study of adult and young offenders. Aggres Behav. 2004;30(4):298–312.

Sourander A, Jensen P, Rönning JA, Niemelä S, Helenius H, Sillanmäki L, et al. What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “From a Boy to a Man” study. Pediatrics. 2007;120(2):397–404.

World Health Organization. Preventing Suicide: A Global Imperative. 2014.

Davis SNC. The youth voice project. http://njbullying.org/documents/YVPMarch2010.pdf . 2010.

Kann L, Kinchen S, Shanklin SL, Flint KH, Kawkins J, Harris WA, et al. Youth risk behavior surveillance–United States, 2013. MMWR supplements. 2014;63(4):1–168.

The United Nations Children's Fund U: Protecting children from violence in school. https://www.unicef.org/protection/violence-against-children-in-school . 2021.

MARINA M: How We Can Stand Against Bullying in Egyptian Schools. https://egyptianstreets.com/2021/09/07/how-we-can-stand-against-bullying-in-egyptian-schools/ . 2021.

EgyptWatch: Bullying and racism rise in Egypt. https://egyptwatch.net/2020/09/23/bullying-and-racism-rise-in-egypt/#:~:text=Last%20July%2C%20the%20first%20judicial%20ruling%20of%20its,Sudanese%20child%20in%20a%20popular%20neighbourhood%20in%20Cairo . 2020.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt

Gellan K. Ahmed & Khaled Elbeh

Department of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, King’s College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK

Gellan K. Ahmed

Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, Al-Azhar University Hospital, Assiut, Egypt

Nabil A. Metwaly & Islam Shaaban

Department of Psychiatry, Sohag Mental Health Hospital, Sohag, Egypt

Marwa Salah Galal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GA and MS searched,collected papers and were the contributors in writing the manuscript. IS, NM and KE revised review, and manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gellan K. Ahmed .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

No ethical approval was obtained or required for the purposes of this review.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

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

Cite this article.

Ahmed, G.K., Metwaly, N.A., Elbeh, K. et al. Risk factors of school bullying and its relationship with psychiatric comorbidities: a literature review. Egypt J Neurol Psychiatry Neurosurg 58 , 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-022-00449-x

Download citation

Received : 06 October 2021

Accepted : 14 January 2022

Published : 05 February 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41983-022-00449-x

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Risk factors
• Psychiatric comorbidity

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

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

Posted May 2, 2021 | Reviewed by Hara Estroff Marano

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

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

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

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

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

Silence facilitates traumatization

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

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

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

The impact of bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What can be done?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State-by-state legislation

Bullying prevention programs (the KiVA program is also notable)

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

Trauma-informed teaching

US Government Stop Bullying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

A systematic literature review on the effects of bullying at school

• February 19, 2021
• Abstract Views: 0
• Downloads: 0
• Page: 35-39
• Tharishini a/p Mana Mohan  Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor,  Malaysia
• Abu Yazid Abu Bakar  Faculty of Education, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor,  Malaysia

Dresler-Hawke, E., & Whitehead, D. (2013). The behavioral ecological model as a framework for school-based anti-bullying health promotion interventions. The Journal of School Nursing, 25(3), 195-204.

Evans, C. R., & Smokowski, P. R. (2015). Prosocial bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(12), 2289-2307.

Ghani, S. A., Awang, M. M., Ahmad, A. R., Jalal, B., & Bakar, A. Y. A. (2020). Fenomena Buli dan Gangsterisme: Satu Kajian Empirikal. Kuala Lumpur: UPNM Press.

Jan, A., & Husain, S. (2015). Bullying in elementary schools: Its’ causes and effects on students. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 43-56.

Omoteso, B. A. (2010). Bullying behaviour, its’ associated factors and psychological effects among secondary students in Nigeria. Journal of International Social Research, 3(10), 498-509.

Rigby, K. (2011). Health consequences of bullying and its prevention. Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized, 310.

Rivara, F., & Le Menestrel, S. (2014). Committee on the Biological and Psychosocial Effects of Peer Victimization: Lessons for Bullying Prevention. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington (DC).

UNESCO. (2018). School violence and bullying: Global status and trends, drivers and consequences.

• There are currently no refbacks.

Register Now

• Editorial Team
• Focus and Scope
• Publication Ethics
• Section Policies
• Open Access Policy
• Privacy Statemet
• Journal History
• Author Guidelines

SCHOULID is Nationally Accredited in SINTA 5

Download Manuscript Template

• Other Journals
• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Literature Review on Bullying

Related Papers

Jo Dominado

Shelley Hymel

Wilfrena Mae Lopez

White Paper

Valerie L Marsh

Although the bully-victim conflict is an age-old scenario, researchers only began studying it in school settings 45 years ago. The most agreed upon definition of bullying includes three criteria: 1) intentionality (desire or goal of inflicting harm, intimidation, and/or humiliation), 2) some repetitiveness, and most importantly, 3) a power imbalance between the socially or physically more prominent bully and the more vulnerable victim. The power differential can manifest among a variety of factors, such as physical dominance, self- confidence, peer group status, etc. Conversely, conflict between equals is not considered bullying, but rather, general aggression. Another, more recent concept that has emerged in the field of bullying research is the category of “bully-victims,” a smaller subset of youth who both perpetrate and experience bullying. The forms bullying can take include: direct aggression (e.g., name calling, hitting, belittling someone in front of others) or indirect, relational aggression (e.g., spreading rumors, exclusion from the group, hurting another’s reputation). Often occurring in school contexts, which has expanded in recent years to include cyberbullying in the virtual worlds of digital and social media, bullying takes place throughout the school years, from elementary to high school and has likewise been studied across the grades. And since bullying is a familiar, if not intimate, school experience for most people, it is sometimes easy or tempting to accept it as a rite of passage or a typical childhood experience, rather than a problem that needs to be addressed. As Olweus (2013) explains, “being bullied by peers represents a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the child or youth exposed” (p. 770). It is with this understanding of bullying – as a violation of basic human rights – that this two-part brief explores the phenomenon (history, prevalence, risk factors, and consequences) in Part I and reviews research- based interventions in Part II.

Iwona Gn , Shelley Hymel

This article provides an introductory overview of findings from the past 40 years of research on bullying among school-aged children and youth. Research on definitional and assessment issues in studying bullying and victimization is reviewed, and data on prevalence rates, stability, and forms of bullying behavior are summarized, setting the stage for the 5 articles that comprise this American Psychologist special issue on bullying and victimization. These articles address bullying, victimization, psychological se-quela and consequences, ethical, legal, and theoretical issues facing educators, researchers, and practitioners, and effective prevention and intervention efforts. The goal of this special issue is to provide psychologists with a comprehensive review that documents our current understanding of the complexity of bullying among school-aged youth and directions for future research and intervention efforts.

Pauline Hyland , Conor Guckin

John Kibuutu

Marlon Tarraz

Bullying Outline

Peter Mbithi

Outline BULLYING IN SCHOOLS 1 Specific Purpose: To inform my classmates about the prevalence and dangers of bullying in schools Thesis Statement: Despite the numerous efforts put in place by the government, bullying has remained prevalent, leading to adverse impacts of depression, suicide, and dropout from schools. This outline offers a blueprint for analyzing the problem through the lens of its definition, precipitating factors, severity, impacts, and viable solutions.

RELATED PAPERS

Rev. Col. Bras. …

Jurandir Dias

Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular

Rosalia Torres

Herbert Toth

Sarah Czerny

Tetsu-to-Hagane

Koh-ichi Sugimoto

sanya srivastava

Proceedings of the 4th Annual Symposium on Computing for Development - ACM DEV-4 '13

Andre Henney

simone pallone de figueiredo

The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Salem Said Al Touby

Case Reports in Dermatological Medicine

harjot kaur

Celebes Journal of Language Studies

Andi Sadapotto

Biological Control

ENRIQUE PEREZ

Mirian Moura Lott

IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering

Ramon Costa

Benjamin De Vos

Dudi Nasrudin

Khoa Nguyen

Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells

Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B

Stephen Erfle

Czesław Malewski

Isabel Vigo

Zeynep Kamil tıp bülteni

Pigments (Princeton: Princeton Univeristy Press)

Quincy Ngan

Electronics

Nektarios Georgalas

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024