Bullying in School. Nature, Effects and Remedies

Research Papers in Education 16(3) 2001, pp.
247 270
Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies

Xin Ma, Len L. Stewin and Deveda L. Mah
ABSTRACT This review synthesizes recent research on bullying in school, a widespread social problem among school-age children in many countries. It begins with a theoretical examination of the de nition of bullying, showing the multifaceted coercive behaviours of bullying. The review proceeds to demonstrate the short- and long-term consequences of bullying for both victims and bullies. The authors outline individual characteristics of victims, bullies and bystanders as well as school characteristics of bullying. The authors examine, from the sociological perspective, the social tolerance of bullying, and provide theoretical bases for explaining bullying behaviours. The review ends with a discussion on successful prevention and intervention programmes of bullying as well as on the counselling aspects of bullying. In addition, the authors examine quantitative and qualitative methods commonly used in the research of bullying, evaluating each method and introducing new, promising quantitative and qualitative methods, and discuss future directions in the study of bullying in school. Keywords : bullying; victims; bullies; intervention; counselling
As a centuries-old phenomenon, bullying has existed in schools for a long time. Traditional wisdom regards bullying as not seriously harmful, a natural part of growing up, and helpful to toughen up children and to prepare them for adulthood (Cartwright, 1995). A remarkable shift of public attitude toward bullying took place in the early 1980s when three Norwegian boys aged 10 to 14 committed suicide partly as a result of severe bullying by their peers (Olweus, 1991a; 1991b). Subsequently, other tragic incidents from several places in the world have heightened public concern about bullying. For example, in Detroit, US, a young victim of bullying reacted with extreme anger shooting and killing the bully (Greenbaum, 1988). In Tokyo, Japan, a 13 year-old boy hanged himself leaving a note blaming his classmates for Xin Ma is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta; Len L. Stewin is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta; Deveda L. Mah is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta.
Research Papers in Education ISSN 0267-1522 print/ISSN 1470-1146 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/02671520110058688
severe bullying (Lane, 1989). In Victoria, Canada, a 14 year-old girl died after being left to drown following severe bullying by her peers (Vancouver Province, 15 November 1998). In Goals 2000: Education America Act , President Clinton signed into law eight National Education Goals. The sixth goal aims to have every American school free of drugs, violence, rearms and unauthorized alcohol, as well as offering a disciplined environment conducive to learning (National Education Goals Panel, 1993). Researchers are now taking a multifacet approach that emphasizes societal, community, school, family, relationship and personal factors to understand and treat school violence (see Carter and Stewin, 1999). School violence has traditionally referred to acts of assault, theft and vandalism. With increasing public concern about school safety, administrators, educators and parents now consider school violence as including àny conditions or acts that create a climate in which individual students and teachers feel fear or intimidation in addition to being the victims of assault, theft, or vandalism (Batsche and Knoff, 1994, p. 165). This broadened definition of school violence certainly includes bullying that has become a prevalent, serious social problem among school-age children in many parts of the world. Given the recent surge of interest and research in bullying in school, the current review is an attempt to update our knowledge on this important issue. Our aims were (a) to examine the nature and effects of bullying in school; (b) to portray individual characteristics of bullies and victims as well as characteristics of schools that bullies and victims attend; (c) to synthesize remedies for bullying in school; (d) to explore theoretical ideas that elucidate the mechanisms of bullying and its multiple manifestations; and (e) to critique existing studies methodologically and outline directions for further studies. Using the keyword `bullying, we electronically searched four databases: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC); Current Content; Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI); and PsycLIT. Retrieved articles were screened to keep those that were published after 1985. We primarily examined research articles (based on quantitative and/or qualitative primary empirical data). Although we did read articles in non-academic, professional journals, we mainly looked for research evidence presented in those articles. We also narrowed down the number of articles by selecting only those describing bullying in elementary and/or secondary schools. Selected articles were then examined in terms of focus, method and results.
THE NATURE OF BULLYING De nitions of bullying Prior to the Norwegian tragedy, there was little literature on bullying. As a result, bullying was inadequately de ned. However, extensive research had been done in the area of aggression. Aggression is commonly de ned as a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism (see Buss, 1961). Bullying, by nature, is a form of aggression. Consequently, bullying resembles aggression in de nition (Randall, 1997). Hazler et al. (1992) noted that `bullying is a form of aggression in which one student, or a group of students, physically or psychologically abuses a victim over a period of time (p. 20). Randall (1997) stated that `bullying is the aggressive behavior arising from the deliberate intent to cause physical or psychological distress to others (p. 4). These two de nitions are representative of the classical de nitions of bullying. A careful examination of the above definitions reveals their similarities and differences,
248 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3
which are very important in shaping the concept of bullying. Both de nitions describe bullying as a form of aggression. However, Randalls (1997) de nition emphasizes intent, whereas Hazler et als (1992) de nition stresses repetition. Randall (1997) believes that aggressive behaviour does not have to be regular or repetitive to become bullying behaviour. On the other hand, Hazler et al. (1992) believe the opposite. In line with these researchers, Olweus (1991a) stated that `the [bullying] action is . . . repeated; it is not a one-time act (p. 49). The common weakness of both de nitions is the lack of explicit inclusion of the `verbal component of bullying (to be discussed later in greater detail). Besags (1989) de nition represents a good recognition of the principal elements of bullying: Bullying is repeated attacks physical, psychological, social or verbal by those in a position of power, which is formally or situationally de ned, on those who are powerless to resist, with the intention of causing distress for their own gain or grati cation. (p. 4) This de nition also accommodates the power component of bullying as described in Smith and Sharp (1994) who described bullying as the systematic abuse of power. McCarthy (1997) also perceived bullying as a theatrical form of ritual discourse that re ects, reinforces and sometimes reshapes the hierarchical structure of the society of students within a school. A simplified de nition has been used in the literature that bullying is a form of aggression in which a student or a group of students verbally or physically harasses a victim without provocation (Hazler et al., 1992). A victim is often de ned as a student who is repeatedly exposed to bullying activities on the part of one or more students (Olweus, 1993a). Bullying consists of a wide range of coercive behaviours that can often be classi ed into physical and verbal bullying. Physical bullying includes hitting, pushing, holding and hostile gesturing, whereas verbal bullying includes threatening, humiliating, degrading, teasing, namecalling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, staring, sticking out the tongue, eye-rolling, silent treatment, manipulating friendship and ostracizing (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997; Remboldt, 1994a; 1994b). Sexual bullying in which one or more students sexually harass another student repeatedly has also been proposed as another distinct form of bullying (see Batsche and Knoff, 1994). Unfortunately, there are considerable common confusions about bullying behaviours. For example, many adults (including educators) consider most verbal bullying tactics as normal and harmless (e.g. Hazler et al., 1992; Remboldt, 1994a; 1994b). Many educators, particularly in elementary schools, misperceive hurtful activities associated with bullying as `childish behaviors (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997).
A wides prea d socia l phenom enon Bullying is a major social concern in many parts of the world. Hoover and Juul (1993) reported that bullying is a prevalent, serious social problem among school-age children in Europe and the US. Similar results have also been obtained in Australia (Slee, 1994), Canada (Charach et al., 1995), and Japan (Murakami, 1995). In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) conducted a survey in 1984 in which 25 per cent of students surveyed indicated one of their most serious concerns as the `fear of bullies (cited in Batsche and Knoff, 1994). Perry et al. (1988) reported that 10 per cent of students aged 9 to 12 in their sample were described as èxtreme victims by their classmates. Hoover et al. (1992) studied students aged 12 to 18 in Midwestern US, reporting
Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 249
that 75 per cent were bullied at least once and that 14 per cent of both boys and girls suffered trauma from the incidents. In the special report to the National Education Goals Panel, Johnston et al. (1993) stated that 29 per cent of students in Grade 8 were threatened by individuals without a weapon and 19 per cent were threatened by individuals with a weapon in the 1992 school year. The National School Safety Center reported that about 3 million crimes (mainly bullying, ghting, carrying weapons and gang activities) occur in or near school campus each year, that is, one crime every six seconds when school is in session (Kum-Walks, 1996). The Johnson Institutes survey showed that 14 per cent of school-age boys and 4 per cent of school-age girls who responded to the survey participated in physically attacking people and intentionally starting ghts three or more times in a year (Remboldt, 1994b). In England, 23 per cent of both children and adolescents reported being bullied (Lane, 1989). Smith (1991) studied students in single-sex schools in the UK and found that 20 per cent of them were victims of bullying and 10 per cent were offenders. Among students aged 8 and 9 in the UK, 26 per cent were victims and 17 per cent were bullies (Boulton and Underwood, 1992). More than 6,700 secondary school students in Shef eld, England reported high rates of being bullied (Whitney and Smith, 1993). A survey of 324 members of the Association for Stammerers in Great Britain indicated that 82 per cent were bullied in their school lives (Mooney and Smith, 1995). Bullying is also a widespread phenomenon in other parts of the world. Olweus (1978; 1991a) reported that 15 per cent of Norwegian school-age children were involved in bullying either as victims or offenders. In his other studies, Olweus (1993a; 1994) reported that 9 per cent of students in his sample age 8 to 16 in Norway and Sweden experienced bullying and 7 per cent claimed to bully others `now and then or `more often. Slee (1994) reported that 14 per cent of primary and secondary school students were bullied at least ònce a week or `more often in Australia. Particularly, Slee (1994) showed that 26 per cent of children in Grades 3 to 7 were bullied at least ònce a week or `more often. Charach et al. (1995) surveyed students age 4 to 14 from 22 classrooms in Toronto, Canada and found that one-third of them were involved in bullying as either victims or offenders. Based on the statistics presented above, describing bullying in school as a serious, widespread social problem is not likely to be an overstatement. As a matter of fact, Remboldt (1994b) argued that bullying statistics may well underestimate the problem because many bullying incidents are either unreported or underreported.
Longitudinal pattern of bullying Many administrators, educators and parents are interested in whether bullying in school is on the rise. Surprisingly, however, few studies have investigated the longitudinal pattern of bullying in school. Olweus (1991b) found that, in Norway, bullying in school is more serious in form and more often in frequency now than a decade ago. In the US, 25 per cent of students in Grade 12 were threatened by individuals without a weapon in 1992 in comparison to 19 per cent in 1980 (Johnston et al., 1993). Speci cally, Johnston et al. (1993) reported that from 1980 to 1985 there was a rapid growth of bullying in school and then the gure remained stable from 1986 to 1993. More recently, Winters (1997) documented that bullying, including verbal intimidation, has increased over the past three years in Pennsylvania schools which he claimed mirror schools in the rest of the US. More important, the increase of bullying incidents is universal, regardless of school locations and school sizes (Winters, 1997).
So far, we have identified the critical elements in the definition of bullying. The basic elements include repetition, intention and multiple forms. Different de nitions are a major reason for the variation in research results reported in the literature. Nevertheless, even with different de nitions, researchers agree that bullying in school is a serious, widespread social problem. `Bullying may be the most prevalent form of violence in the schools and the form that is likely to affect the greatest number of students (Batsche and Knoff, 1994, p. 166).
CONSEQUENCES OF BULLYING Bullying in school has devastating effects on students, and it often leads to violent and disastrous consequences for both victims and offenders (Hazler, 1994). Bullying is increasingly seen as an effective precursor to more serious aggressive behaviours (Farrington, 1991; Lochman, 1992; Oliver et al., 1994; Olweus, 1991a; 1991b; 1993a; 1994; Pulkkinen and Pitkanen, 1993). Eron and Huesmann (1984) reported in a 22-year longitudinal study of 8 year-old bullies that most of them had at least one criminal record in their adulthood. Eron et al. (1987) followed bullies identi ed early in school and found that 25 per cent had a criminal record by the age of 30. Olweus (1994) showed that 60 per cent of bullies in Grades 6 to 9 had been arrested at least once and 35 per cent to 40 per cent had been arrested three or more times by the age of 24. On the other hand, victims of bullying typically respond with: (a) avoidance behaviours (such as skipping school and staying away from certain places in school); (b) a decline in academic performance; (c) a loss of self-esteem; and (d) in extreme cases, running away, committing suicide and killing bullies (e.g. Batsche and Knoff, 1994; Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Greenbaum, 1988; Kochenderfer and Ladd, 1996; Slee, 1994). Speci cally, Gilmartin (1987) reported that even victims of mild bullying consider school an unpleasant place. Slee (1994) stated that `10% of victims reported actually staying away from school to avoid bullying while 29% had thought of doing so (p. 98). Victims of bullying may lose interest in learning and experience a drop in academic grades because their attention is distracted from learning (Anderson, 1982 cited in Hoover et al., 1992; Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1993a). For example, Olweus (1978) found that male victims of bullying have lower academic grades than their peers. Hazler et al. (1992) found that 9 in 10 victims of bullying experienced a decline in academic grades. Children victimized by bullies typically suffer from physical and psychological distress (Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1993a). Victims of bullying in childhood tend to have low self-concept and experience depression in adulthood (Olweus, 1993b). They often experience greater degrees of fear, anxiety, guilt, shame, helplessness and depression than children who are not bullied (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Hoover et al., 1993; Randall, 1997; Slee, 1994; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Bullying events have long-lasting effects on victims (e.g. Lampert, 1997). For example, the loss of self-esteem may last long into the victims adult life (e.g. Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1993a). Gilmartin (1987) studied `love-shy male adults and found that most of them were bullied as children. Victims of bullying often bring home their frustrations in school and lash out at their parents who unfortunately are likely unaware of their children s victimization in school (Ambert, 1994). As a result, family relationships are likely to deteriorate. Eventually, society in general suffers from bullying (Farrington, 1991). Results of several longitudinal studies indicate that young bullies take their social problems with them into adulthood and most importantly they pass their social problems on to a new generation (e.g. Farrington, 1991; Serbin et al., 1991). Because
aggression has been shown to be stable across time, some young bullies are likely, later on, to engage in criminal activities (Farrington, 1991). Former bullies are also likely to bully or abuse their spouses and children, which creates the cycle of domestic violence and encourages new generations of aggressive children (Farrington, 1991).
CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES AND VICTIMS Chara cteristics of bullies Olweus (1991a; 1991b) described bullies as impulsive, aggressive, dominative, non-empathetic, and physically strong. Hoover and Juul (1993) added that they have a positive attitude toward instrumental violence and a favourable self-image. Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Pakasiahti (1999) characterized permanently aggressive offenders, in both childhood and adolescence, as having aggressive strategies of problem solving and as lacking constructive alternatives of problem solving. Bullies are from families in which parents: are authoritarian (preferring physical means of discipline); are often hostile and rejecting; are inconsistent in their parenting (being both rejecting and permissive); are poor social problem-solvers; and emphasize striking back at minor provocation (see Batsche and Knoff, 1994). Oliver et al. (1994) added other family characteristics of bullies as nancial and social problems, cold emotional environment, lack of family structure, social isolation, parental con ict and poor child management skills (reinforcing aggression and failing to reward, often even punishing, non-aggressive, prosocial behaviours). Although most bullies do not like school, their academic performance is not necessarily below other students (Rigby and Slee, 1991). Therefore, bullying behaviours are not likely to be a consequence of poor grades and academic failure in school (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). Rigby and Slee (1991) also concluded that bullies do not have lower self-esteem than other children. In fact, Greenbaum (1988) suggested that bullies feeling of success is effectively strengthened through both positive reinforcement, such as goal attainment, and negative reinforcement, such as the removal of threat, which makes them gain stronger self-concept consistently. Sutton et al. (1999a) indicated that successful bullies have sound social cognition and mind skills to manipulate and organize victims; they are often skillful in in icting suffering in subtle but damaging manners, avoiding being detected as bullies. These researchers argued that such skills are particularly useful for the ringleader bullies and in the indirect forms of bullying in which females more frequently engage. Sutton et al. (1999b) found superior performance of bullies on a set of tasks distinguishing between cognitive skills and emotional understanding to their victims. They suggested that bullies with superior mind skills to their victims can often succeed in their bullying attempts. Kaukiainen et al. (1999) studied the roles of social intelligence in three types of bullying behaviours: indirect, physical and verbal, and they concluded that indirect bullying offenders have signi cantly more social intelligence than their victims across all three age groups examined (10, 12 and 14 year-old children). Berthold (1996) described characteristics of bullies in Grades 4 to 6 in detail they tend to smoke and drink, cheat on tests, bring weapons to school, and are home without adult supervision for more than two hours after school each day. Bullies never admit that victims are weaker than they are, and they believe that they act because they are provoked (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). Bullies are often overly sensitive, considering
normal actions of others as hostile and provocative (Lochman, 1992). Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) found that bullies are moderately popular with their peers in elementary school. Even when their popularity starts to drop in junior high school, bullies are still more popular than their victims (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). Bullies usually search for victims similar to them in age or younger than they are. For example, more than half of children in the lower grades are bullied by children older than they are, whereas children in the upper grades are bullied by children at the same age (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1991a). Among students aged 4 to 14, those in Grades 5 and 6 are more likely to be involved in bullying others (Charach et al., 1995). In general, Branwhite (1994) reported more incidents of bullying in secondary school than in elementary school (see also Winters, 1997). Therefore, bullies tend to bully more when they grow older, but bullying often takes the form of verbal abuse. There is some evidence now that when bullies grow older, they rely less on direct, physical bullying, but verbal bullying remains consistently high over time (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Perry et al., 1988). Rigby (1997) reported an interesting quadratic relationship in terms of attitudes toward bullying, beliefs about bullying, and bullying behaviours among children from ages 9 to 18. Both male and female bullies have increased their engagement in bullying behaviours with the increase in age from 9 to 16 and they have displayed attitudes and beliefs increasingly supportive of bullying behaviours. After the age of 16, however, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours associated with bullying all become moderate among children.
Chara cteristics of vict im s Olweus (1978) classi ed victims into two groups. The passive group contains victims who are anxious, insecure, cautious, sensitive and defenceless, whereas the provocative group contains victims who are quick-tempered, hyperactive, anxious, and defensive (Bernstein and Watson, 1997; Olweus, 1991a; 1991b). Perry et al. (1988) presented a similar idea with different terms: low-aggressive victims and high-aggressive victims. Research studies are inconsistent regarding the distribution of victims. For example, Olweus (1984) found that less than one in ve victims is provocative, whereas Perry et al. (1988) reported that there are roughly equal numbers of low- and high-aggressive victims. Passive victims are lonely and abandoned without friends in school (Olweus, 1978). Passive male victims are physically weak and psychologically sensitive, often have close and positive relationship with their parents (especially mothers), and are seen by teachers as being overly protected by their parents (Olweus, 1978). Perry et al. (1988) also took a slightly different, more outcome-oriented (instead of personality-oriented as discussed above) standpoint to categorize victims into three heterogeneous groups on the basis of three critical elements of bullying: victimization, aggression and peer rejection. The rst group is characterized as victimized/rejected, which essentially resembles the passive group in Olweus (1978). The second group is characterized as aggressive/ rejected, which essentially re ects the provocative group in Olweus (1978). The third group is characterized as victimized/aggressive/rejected, which is a unique group in that children in this group may bully weaker children while being victims of bullying themselves. Low self-esteem and high social anxiety are identi ed as major characteristics of bullying victims who tend to perceive themselves as stupid and unattractive (e.g. Hoover and Juul, 1993; Lane, 1989; Slee, 1994). Speci cally, fear of negative evaluation involving peers is a signi cant characteristic of victims for both males and females in general, and social distress and social avoidance for females in particular (Slee, 1994). Although victims appear to long for social
approval (Troy and Sroufe, 1987), they rarely initiate prosocial behaviours in their interaction with others (Bernstein and Watson, 1997). Perry et al. (1988) found that males with lower intelligence are more likely to be victims of bullying. Roland (1989) also suggested that victims are less intelligent than non-victims. Victims of bullying are usually physically weaker than their bullies (Olweus, 1978). Slee (1994) stated that `victimization is associated with poor physical, social, and psychological wellbeing in primary school children (p. 100). Members of the Association for Stammerers in Great Britain indicate that their stammer is the major reason for being bullied in school (Mooney and Smith, 1995). On the other hand, some researchers argue that apart from being physically weaker, other physical characteristics are a much less important cause of bullying (e.g. Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994), although any physical disadvantage is used against the victim once the bully nds the victim (Besag, 1989). Recently, some researchers suggested that victims of bullying lack skills in emotional regulation, a process facilitating coping behaviours that ease the stress of negative emotions from frustration, failure, and trauma (Cicchetti et al. 1995, cited in Mahady-Wilton, 1997). Mahady-Wilton (1997) classi ed coping styles of bullying into problem-solving coping that deescalates and resolves bullying episodes and reactive coping that perpetuates and escalates bullying episodes. Victims of bullying most often choose the reactive coping style (MahadyWilton, 1997). Troy and Sroufe (1987) found that victims of bullying tend to have inconsistent attachment patterns with their parents who demonstrate both responsiveness and rejection. They argued that the responsiveness keeps children from giving up on their relationship with parents, and the rejection teaches them how to be victims. This explains why victims often continue to make ineffective attempts to interact with their bullies after being victimized (Troy and Sroufe, 1987). Champion (1997) concluded that, in general, children who lack support in interpersonal relationship are likely to be bullied. Roberts and Coursel (1996) believed that victims often do not report bullying incidents, providing two reasons: fear of retaliation and experience of inadequate support from adults when they do ask for help. Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) reported that 40 per cent of primary school children and 60 per cent of junior high school children indicated that educators took little action to help them when they reported bullying incidents (see also Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Hazler et al., 1992; Hoover et al., 1992). Sometimes, victims of bullying receive even less attention from educators than their bullies (Boulton and Underwood, 1992). Younger children are more likely to be victimized. Olweus (1991a) reported that on average 11 per cent of students are bullied in Grades 2 to 6 in comparison to 5 per cent in Grades 7 to 9. He then suggested that the youngest children in school are at most risk of being bullied. Victims seem to have a tendency to be victimized over time. Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) found that male victims at age 13 are still victims at age 16. Slee (1994) reported that 28 per cent of victims are bullied for a period varying from a few months to more than half a year. Boulton and Underwood (1992) found that many victims are bullied for two consecutive school terms. Perry et al. (1988) concluded that once becoming a victim, the student is likely to be consistently bullied for a period of three months, and that à stable propensity to be victimized is established by the time children reach middle school (p. 182).
Gender differences In general, males are more likely to get involved in bullying others than females (e.g. Branwhite, 1994; Charach et al., 1995). Males are also more likely than females to target the same victim repeatedly (Craig, 1993). Males bully both males and females, but females often bully females only (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997). Olweus (1991a) reported that 60 per cent of female victims in Grades 5 to 7 are bullied by male bullies, and an additional 15 per cent to 20 per cent are bullied by males and females acting together. Overall, 80 per cent of male victims are bullied by males (Olweus, 1991a). Boulton and Underwood (1992) found that male bullies account for 65 per cent of bullying incidents, female bullies account for 15 per cent, and another 19 per cent of bullying is done by males and females acting together. Lane (1989) estimated that males tend to bully more than females by a ratio of 3:1. Others argue that females are just as likely as males to get involved in bullying others if considering the multiple forms that bullying takes such as social ostracism in which females more frequently engage (see Siann et al., 1993). Female bullies, however, often do not see social ostracism as committing bullying (Lagerspetz and Bjorkvist, 1994). Male bullies are three to four times more likely than female bullies to use direct, physical abuse (Eron et al., 1987), whereas female bullies are more likely to use indirect, verbal abuse (Hoover et al., 1992). Similarly, labelling physical attacks as direct bullying and social isolation and exclusion from the group as indirect bullying, Olweus (1991a) indicated that males are more likely to engage in direct bullying whereas females in indirect bullying (see also Campbell, 1993; Maccoby, 1986). Males and females bully for different reasons. `Bullying for males is more likely to be part of power-based social relationships and for females af liation activities are more frequently the source of bullying activities (Lane, 1989, p. 213). Crick and Grotpeter (1995) as well as Crick et al. (1997) distinguished between relationally and overtly aggressive behaviours, and found that females are signi cantly more aggressive relationally than males. Crick et al. (1997) demonstrated that this gender difference appears in as early as preschool age. However, Crick and Grotpeter (1995) and Crick et al. (1997) reported that both relationally aggressive males and females share common problems in social-psychological adjustment (e.g. loneliness, depression, isolation and peer rejection) (see also Crick and Dodge, 1994). Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Pakasiahti (1999) emphasized the relationship between aggressive behaviours and aggressive strategies of problem solving among children. They found that this relationship is stronger among females than among males. Salmivalli et al. (1996) distinguished differential participant roles in bullying such as victim, bully, bystander, reinforcer of the bully, helper of the bully and defender of the victim. Their study indicated signi cant gender differences in participant roles in bullying. While males are more often in the roles of bully, reinforcer and helper, females more frequently play the roles of bystander and defender.
The victim bully cycle Floyd (1985) and Greenbaum (1988) have labelled bullying as an ìntergenerational problem. That is, bullies in school are often victims at home (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988; Horne and Socherman, 1996). These researchers imply a victim offender cycle which is quite common in social violence. Perry et al. (1988) made this point more explicit. They studied
the relationship between victimization and aggression, claiming that the two elements are orthogonal. That is, some of the most extreme victims of bullying are also some of the most aggressive bullies.
BYSTANDERS OF BULLYING IN SCHOOL Interest has been increasing among researchers to study and understand bystanders of bullying in school, with an emphasis on their reactions to bullying activities. This type of study is often conducted in a social context of peer processes. For example, OConnell et al. (1999) examined the peer processes that occur during bullying episodes from the social learning perspective. In their study, peers viewed bullying and each one was coded for: actively joining the bully; passively reinforcing the bully; and actively intervening on behalf of the victim. With data from primary school students (Grades 1 to 6), they reported that 54 per cent of peers reinforce bullies (i.e. passively watching bullies bullying), 21 per cent of peers model bullies (i.e. actively joining bullies), and 25 per cent of peers intervene on behalf of victims. OConnell et al. (1999) also reported gender differences among bystanders of bullying. Older males (in Grades 4 to 6) are more likely to actively join bullies than both younger males (in Grades 1 to 3) and older females. Younger and older females are more likely to intervene on behalf of victims than older males. These researchers believed that peers play an important role in the bullying process around the school playground. Salmivalli (1999) argued that studying bystanders in bullying in school is important given that peers are involved in bullying activities in different ways. Furthermore, she suggested that bullying in school should be studied in the social context of the peer group, viewing bullying as a group phenomenon that is largely enabled and sustained by peers in school (see also Salmivalli et al., 1998). Like OConnell et al. (1999), Salmivalli (1999) showed that peers take on different participant roles in bullying, such as bystanders, reinforcers, helpers and defenders, and peer actions are powerful moderators of bullying in school. Children are reasonably aware of their participant roles in bullying, although they tend to underestimate the results of their participant roles in active bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996).
SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLYING School characteristics are often classi ed into context and climate (see Willms, 1992). School context includes characteristics such as school size, student teacher ratio, teacher experience and characteristics of student intakes. School climate portrays the inner working of school life, such as how students and staff are organized for instruction, the formal and informal rules that govern school operation, the nature of interactions between students and staff, and the attitudes, values and expectations of students, parents and teachers. Surprisingly few studies have examined the climate characteristics of schools with more bullying incidents. The special issue of the Journal of Adolescence (vol. 22) was devoted to peer interventions for school violence. Many articles in that issue (e.g. Naylor and Cowie, 1999) considered the presence of a peer support system in a school as a positive climate characteristic of the school and showed the importance and effectiveness of the peer support system that is capable of improving the other aspects of school climate and reducing the incidence of bullying in school (see also Carr, 1988).
A limited number of studies have investigated school contextual characteristics of bullying. Overall, Winters (1997) showed that in the US, large schools in many states have more incidents of school violence. But, Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) and Whitney and Smith (1993) found that school size and class size are not related specifically with bullying in some European countries. Neither is the ethnic structure of a school (Whitney and Smith, 1993). Furthermore, bullying does not seem to be linked with school location. Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) showed that bullying is just as likely in the rest of the country as in the three major Norwegian cities. Hoover et al. (1992) studied students in small, homogenous Midwestern towns in the US, reporting that 72 per cent of girls and 81 per cent of boys are victims of bullying. Overall, Winters (1997) concluded that school violence is no longer just an urban problem. As a matter of fact, some types of school violence are growing faster in rural and suburban schools than in urban schools (Winters, 1997). But, Whitney and Smith (1993) did report a signi cant, negative correlation at the high school level between socioeconomic status (SES) of the families that a school serves and the frequencies of bullying incidents in the school.
SOCIAL TOLERANCE OF BULLYING Society in general seems to tolerate bullying behaviours among school-age children. Horne and Socherman (1996) argue that many adults either do not know how to deal with bullying or fear that the problem may escalate if they do intervene. Although this situation may partly explain the reason for the often salient treatment of bullying by society, there is a historical tolerance of bullying behaviours in society that bears deeper implications. Oliver et al. (1994) asserted that there are socially approved attitudes and values toward bullying. Ambert (1994) attributed social tolerance of bullying to that: (a) bullying is usually done in a private way without the presence of supervising adults; (b) many adults hold the view that children are `social innocents; and (c) many child welfare professionals overemphasize the role of the family, particularly the mother, as the primary in uence on children, ignoring the vital importance of peer in uence. Some researchers argue that gender stereotypes play a role in social tolerance of bullying. Eron and Husemann (1984) believed that parents want boys to be more aggressive than girls. The mentality, `let boys be boys, often in uences adults judgement when males demonstrate aggressive behaviours (Eron and Husemann, 1984). Society at large tolerates male bullies because of the public attitudes of power and masculinity. Most cultures treat physical aggression as a male trait. With expectation and encouragement, many adults regard aggressive behaviours in males as normal but aggressive behaviours in females as abnormal (Eron and Huesmann, 1984; Lagerspetz and Bjorkvist, 1994). Most researchers agree with the role of the media in the promotion of aggressive behaviours in children. Eron and Huesmann (1984) have noticed that in almost all movies and television programmes, males rely on violent conflicts to resolve substantial issues in life. The media portrays aggressive behaviours as both sexy and exciting and as the only effective way to take control of ones life (Remboldt, 1994a). For example, heroes on the screen usually achieve desirable goals, win beauties of interest and gain adulation from peers by means of physical con icts and other coercive techniques (Eron and Husemann, 1984). The media also spreads the notion of àn eye for an eye for resolving bullying problems. For example, Oliver et al. (1994) found that some children s books advocate the use of `violence (i.e. hitting the bully) as a way to handle being bullied.
COMBATING BULLYING IN SCHOOL In general, Carter and Stewin (1999) have summarized factors that contribute to school violence as: (a) societal factors such as media portrayal of violence, gender roles and social learning experiences; (b) community factors such as separation of school and community, poverty and unemployment and lack of `belonging to society; (c) school factors such as expectations, rules and forms of discipline; (d) family factors such as family violence, abuse and neglect; (e) relationship factors such as relationship between parents, teachers and students, situational determinants and peer group membership; and (f) personal factors such as social problem solving skills, genetic in uences and developmental factors. These factors provide a general guidance for prevention and intervention programmes to reduce school violence (including bullying). The following discussion focuses more on speci c measures for combating bullying in school.
Prevention There is little discussion on the prevention of bullying in the literature. Most discussion centres around the intervention and treatment of bullying. This may be due to the overlap between prevention and intervention. Studies have shown that aggressive behaviours tend to be so stable over time that early signs of bullying may predict later aggression (e.g. Farrington, 1991; Lane, 1989; Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). From our perspective, this consistent nding is the single most important element that leads to effective prevention programmes. It should alert educators to the need to develop prevention programmes for students who demonstrate early signs of aggression.
Intervention The fact that bullying happens more often in school, rather than on the way to or from school, indicates that schools need to play a more proactive role in eliminating bullying (e.g. Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994; Whitney et al., 1992). The place where most bullying incidents take place is the school playground, particularly in junior high schools (e.g. Hoover and Juul, 1993; Sharp and Smith, 1991; Whitney et al., 1992). School staff need to realize and emphasize the long-term commitment if they are determined to make a sustained effort in reducing bullying in school (Eslea and Smith, 1998). There is a common belief that positive school environment disallows bullying and harassment to ourish (e.g. Hazler, 1994). Effective schools encourage students to have positive interactions with teachers, and set up tougher sanctions against bullying (Barone, 1997). In general, tougher discipline, intensive supervision, counselling for students, and training for teachers are often considered effective remedies for bullying (see Barone, 1997). In addition, Banks (1997) has put together curriculum resources, videos, posters, and children s books to help school staff combat bullying in school. Batsche and Knoff (1994) summarized strategies for combating bullying in school as: (a) promoting facts, not myths, about bullying; (b) dispelling beliefs about aggressive behaviours; (c) conducting a school-wide assessment of bullying; (d) developing a student code of conduct; (e) providing counselling services for both bullies and victims; (f) involving parents in the intervention process; (g) implementing intervention strategies speci c to aggressive children;
and (h) establishing a system of accountability and evaluation. Hazler (1994) presented some useful ideas especially for classroom teachers to help reduce bullying in school, including: do not look the other way; deal with the problem directly; get parents involved; create appropriate activities; develop a classroom action plan; hold regular discussions with students; teach cooperation among students; and consider professional counselling if necessary. Some psychometric instruments are available to assess bullying in school. Olweus (1978; 1984) developed a questionnaire that directly assesses bullying in school. Perry et al. (1988) developed a Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) to assess the nature and extent of bullying within a student group. Some new effort has taken place to develop more sensitive measures of bullying behaviours in several research initiatives funded by the European Union to address the issue of school violence such as the DFE Shef eld Anti-Bullying Project (see Eslea and Smith, 1998). Some instruments are also available to measure attitudes and beliefs about bullying in school (see Rigby, 1997). Once victims and bullies are identi ed, treatment techniques such as behaviour management, self-control strategies, social skills training, information processing, cognitive perspective taking are considered effective (see Coie et al., 1991). For example, Cunningham et al. (1998) observed that the student mediation program effectively reduces physically aggressive behaviours around the school playground from 51 per cent to 65 per cent, and that the positive impact of this feasible, acceptable programme sustained for at least one year among students. The whole-school approach has been suggested in many studies as the most effective way to combat bullying in school. For example, Slee and Rigby (1994) presented the PEACE (Policy, Education, Action, Coping, Evaluation) approach. Olweus (1993a) described an intervention programme that can be implemented at school, classroom and individual levels, including: (a) the use of questionnaire to help adults and students become aware of the extent of the problem and help justify intervention efforts; (b) the use of a parental awareness campaign to get parents involved in the intervention efforts; (c) the development of classroom rules against bullying; and (d) the development of other components of anti-bullying programmes such as individual counselling with bullies and victims, implementation of cooperative learning activities to reduce social isolation and improve peer relationship and adult supervision. In their review, Clarke and Kiselica (1997) focused on a systematic, school-wide intervention approach which includes several components: (a) a philosophical shift on the issue of bullying among school personnel; (b) educating students, teachers, administrators and parents; (c) consistent school policies; (d) close adult supervision; (e) early intervention; (f) school-wide assessment; and (g) supportive training and counselling. Intervention programmes integrating these components have shown signi cant effects with bullying incidents reduced from 20 per cent (Arora, 1994) to 50 per cent (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994) after two years. Educators often spend the rst year developing policies and procedures and in establishing programmes of education and training for staff and students. This is a preparation, rather than intervention period, thus often only modest decline in bullying activities appears. With suf cient preparation, educators emphasize intervention in the second year, achieving favourable results, and substantial decline in bullying behaviours are observable by the end of the second year. This process does indicate that combating bullying in school is a long-term effort (see also Eslea and Smith, 1998), requiring at least two years for intervention programmes to be effective. The recent, pioneering work of Salmivalli (1999) on the participant roles in bullying has particular implications for the intervention and treatment of bullying. Her work is a very important addition to strategies for combating bullying in school. She argued that the power
of the peer group should be fully recognized and utilized to combat bullying in school. She recommended that school staff target the whole peer group rather than individuals in their effort to end bullying in school, arguing that it is peers who, after adult encouragement and training, take action against bullying. Peers should be encouraged to take action against bullying both informally in their spontaneous everyday interactions with others and formally as peer counsellors (Salmivalli, 1999).
Counselling School counsellors play a particularly signi cant role in reducing bullying in school (e.g. Clarke and Kiselica, 1997; Roberts and Coursol, 1996). Counsellors have the advantage to work individually with students involved in bullying. This gives counsellors additional `tools apart from strategies for combating bullying discussed above. For example, some children s literature addresses the problems of bullying and the strategies of coping, and can be incorporated into counselling practices (Oliver et al., 1994). Banks (1997) has provided a comprehensive list of childrens books and videos that actively promote prosocial behaviours in school (see also Sharp and Smith, 1991). Kellam et al. (1994) encouraged school counsellors to focus on children in Grades 1 to 3 and students in the rst year of middle school because aggressive behaviours are most likely to take shape during those periods. Social skills training in small groups and classroom discussion about bullying are other effective counselling strategies (Charach et al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1980). Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Pakasiahti (1999) considered modifying childrens strategies of social problem solving as an effective intervention of aggressive behaviours such as bullying. Bullying also offers a good opportunity to teach students non-con ict resolution skills (Briggs, 1996). Hoover and Juul (1993) suggested: counselling for families of bullies to increase family closeness and to develop structures and limits on aggressive behaviours; and counselling for families of victims to help increase the separate identities of family members (helping family members to use Ì statements rather than one member speaking for another) as a way to avoid family over-involvement in bullying incidents (see also Oliver et al., 1994). As discussed earlier, peer rejection is one of the major characteristics of victims of bullying. The effectiveness of remedies associated with peer rejection depends on how well school staff can effectively identify the type of rejection that victims are experiencing (Perry et al., 1988). `Clearly, it is necessary to understand the type of victim one is working with in order to implement successful interventions (Batsche and Knoff, 1994, p. 168). For passive victims, strategies such as assertiveness training and a stronger visual pro le are recommended (Batsche and Knoff, 1994); whereas for provocative victims, strategies such as interpreting hostile bias and assertive/less aggressive solutions to threat are recommended (Dodge et al., 1990). The ndings of Crick and Grotpeter (1995) and Crick et al. (1997) imply that school counsellors need to pay close attention to the social-psychological adjustment of victims. Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996) reported that the duration of victimization experiences of children is related to the degree of their school adjustment problems. Cowies (1998) study advised school counsellors on the bene ts and disadvantages of using peer-support programmes for victims. School counsellors need to be sensitive to individual background characteristics of students attending counselling programmes. For example, Osterman et al. (1997) studied three nonaggressive con ict resolutions among students known as constructive resolution, intervention as a third party in a con ict between others, and withdrawal. They found that peaceful con ict
resolution behaviours vary signi cantly across student gender, age, and ethnicity. Kochenderfer and Ladd (1997) found that victims have differential reactions to bullies conditional on the victimization process (either reduced or continued) that victims are in, indicating that school counsellors need to be sensitive to the differential stages of victimization in supporting and counselling victims. Salmivalli (1999), in her examination of participant roles of peers in bullying, argued that the focus of school counselling in bullying should be shifted from supporting victims to working with peers in other participant roles. She believed that peer intervention has the utmost power to put bullying in school to the end. Naylor and Cowie (1999) also encouraged school counsellors to develop effective peer support systems and make full use of these systems to improve school social environment and combat bullying in school (see also Carr, 1988). Clarke and Kiselica (1997) cautioned school counsellors of the possible resistance to change from some fellow staff who tolerate bullying because of various social stereotypes. Neese (1989) encouraged school counsellors to conduct specially designed in-service training to help school personnel establish a positive attitude toward the problem of bullying. This need is real, and many things need to be done. For example, many school principals, particularly elementary school principals, do not have adequate knowledge of the law regarding student violence (Pauken, 1997). Baker (1996) presented many strategies to build a power base for change and counselling and for coping with problems associated with social reforms in school. Clarke and Kiselica (1997) emphasized the importance for school counsellors to obtain support from school administrators for any change initiatives. The professional development of school counsellors has also been noted, such as training in crisis intervention (Roberts and Coursol, 1996).
EXP LAINING BULLYING IN SCHOOL Power-based theory Some researchers believe that the major mechanism of bullying is control and power, as Batsche and Knoff (1994) stated that `bullying is all about control (p. 167). For example, Hoover and Juul (1993) found that bullies have a strong desire to dominate others. Olweus (1991a; 1991b) described one of the major characteristics of bullies as dominative. Most bullies want to feel powerful over others and to be `cool before peers (Charach et al., 1995). Desire for power and control has been particularly identi ed as the main reason for boys to bully others (Lane, 1989). Advocates of this power-based theory argue that bullies desire for power or control is often strengthened by various social stereotypes about bullying including the negative reinforcement of the media (see the earlier discussion on social tolerance of bullying).
Social learning theory In contrast to the power-based theory, other researchers insist that bullying is a learned social behaviour, more so than a desire for domination. Family also plays a critical part in children s tendency to bully others (Oliver et al., 1994). Parents negativism and particularly the use of power assertive discipline techniques in parenting teach children the way to deal with other persons (Slee and Rigby, 1994). Schwartz et al. (1997) studied the early family experiences of boys who later become both aggressive and bullied in school. They found that aggressive victims
often experience more punitive, hostile, and abusive treatment at home. Many studies agree that bullies in school are often victims at home (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988; Horne and Socherman, 1996). The explanation of the above bilateral relation may well come from social learning theory (e.g. Lorber et al., 1984; Matson, 1989; Sobsey, 1994). For example, Lorber et al. (1984) described the role of social learning theory in the victim offender cycle of abuse. They found that abuse victims are more likely to be violent, aggressive and disruptive than non-abuse controls. This situation is considered as a result of socially learned behaviour. This helps explain the victim offender cycle in bullying, as mentioned in Perry et al. (1988) that some of the most extreme victims of bullying are also some of the most aggressive bullies. Few studies have comprehensively adopted the standpoint of social learning theory to understand bullying in school. For example, few studies of aggression have tested the hypothesis that outcome expectations and outcome values independently predict individual behaviours as stated in social learning theory. Recently, Hall et al. (1998) were able to show that outcome expectations, outcome values and their interactions are differentially related to aggression, indicating that the relationship is often outcome speci c in terms of aggression.
Theory of m ind skills Recently, the stereotyped view of bullies has been challenged (e.g. Kaukiainen et al., 1999; Sutton et al., 1999a; 1999b). The popular social skills de cit model portrays bullies as powerful but òa sh individuals who have little understanding of others. Therefore, bullying behaviours have been seen as a kind of careless exercise of power of bullies on often innocent victims. Sutton et al. (1999a; 1999b) challenged this model by showing that bullies often possess good social cognition and mind skills. Kaukiainen et al. (1999) have provided supporting evidence that bullies often have superior social intelligence to their victims. Therefore, these researchers see bullies as individuals who skillfully exercise their mind skills to manipulate and organize their victims. In icting suffering on victims in a subtle but damaging way without being caught as bullies becomes a constant challenge that thrills bullies to exercise their mind skills and to develop new ones.
REVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS Quantitative m ethods The literature on bullying contains a large number of quantitative studies based on survey data. Survey studies have been a major avenue to examine the extent and impact of bullying in school. Both descriptive and conventional inferential statistics have been widely used to analyse survey data on bullying. Many previous studies had large samples of students. It is important to emphasize that given the call for the whole-school intervention, large sample sizes do seem necessary in bullying studies. The emphasis on the whole-school intervention also dictates the use of multiple schools in data collection and analysis so that effective school policies and practices that reduce bullying can be singled out. The analysis of such hierarchical data (students nested within schools) can best be accomplished with advanced statistical methods, such as hierarchical linear modelling or multilevel modelling, to be discussed next.
The major limitation in the quantitative research literature on bullying is analytical. Most studies on bullying recommend intervention programmes to combat bullying in school. However, intervention programmes are usually implemented in organizational settings which are hierarchically structured, such as students nested within schools. The action of educators and administrators at one level of the education system directly affects, and are affected by, schooling processes at other levels. This hierarchical or multilevel nature of educational data has to be taken into account in data analysis (see Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). By separating total variance according to the hierarchical structure of the data and analysing each component in relation to others, the multilevel statistical procedure has much better statistical control to warrant more valid policy implications (see Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). There is a need to take a multilevel perspective to examine the issue of bullying in school.
Qualitative m ethods Qualitative research on bullying in school has been focusing on elaborating the experiences of victims and bullies in their own words. To achieve this purpose, interviews are commonly used. One of the typical studies is Kiang and Kaplan (1994) who interviewed adolescents regarding their feelings and experiences about racial con ict in school. The major disadvantage of conducting interviews in terms of bullying is that some victims nd it dif cult to disclose their experiences because of shame and fear of retaliation. Rigby (1995), for example, reported that few adolescents appear willing to discuss their bullying experiences publicly without reservation. This situation seriously limits data that can be obtained through interviews. A less threatening approach is needed that provides leeway for students to describe their experiences in an anonymous manner. The strategy to have a large number of students write out, rather than speak out, their bullying experiences just as they normally do in survey studies is becoming more effective because it facilitates an aura of safety among students when they provide information on bullying. This method certainly calls for a new type of data analysis because the traditional qualitative methods do not apply well to data gathered through the above strategy. The research method, often referred to as `concept mapping, is a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Researchers using concept mapping employ phenomenological methods to obtain data and quantitative methods to analyse data. Concept mapping provides objectivity to qualitative data in that it enables researchers to gain understanding of psychological issues and constructs through `the eyes of the participants rather than the researchers. This technique ensures that the data are sorted by individuals, rather than researchers, thereby reducing the potential bias or subjectivity that usually occurs if researchers sort through data. Furthermore, concept mapping displays results of analysis in a visual manner that can be easily understood by people without statistical background. Concept mapping, also referred to as `structural conceptualization, was originally developed for planning and evaluation (see Trochim, 1989). Basically, it is a set of statistical methods to cluster variables into underlying themes. Many researchers in the area of psychological disorders have successfully utilized concept mapping techniques and have demonstrated that they are a powerful research tool (e.g. Daughtry and Kunkel, 1993; Trochim et al., 1994). The technique of concept mapping holds strong promise in the research of bullying in school, and should be considered seriously by qualitative researchers in this area.
Further research Based on our review, we offer some suggestions for further research in the area of bullying. First, the area of school effects on bullying has largely been ùncharted in the research literature. Some studies have examined the contextual effects of a school (e.g. school size and school location) on bullying (see Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Few studies, however, have investigated the effects of school climate (e.g. discipline climate and parental involvement) on bullying. This is unfortunate because it is climate variables, rather than contextual variables, that can be directly controlled or manipulated by educators and administrators. Investigations on the effects of school climate on bullying are likely to provide information leading to changes in school policies and practices that minimize bullying in school. Second, most `macro-political issues have not been addressed in the literature of bullying. It is warranted that schools alone cannot combat bullying. Students spend a considerable amount of time outside schools. A healthy transition from childhood to adulthood requires considerable social support (Hamburg, 1993). However, the neighbourhood and community effects on bullying are largely unknown. For example, are there communities (neighbourhoods) from which students bully less in school? What characteristics of those communities are responsible for less bullying incidents? Are poverty and unemployment in the neighbourhood related to bullying incidents in school? Does residential segregation encourage more bullying? What social support for students is needed in communities from which students have more bullying incidents in school? These and similar questions are important because they lead to improvement in social policies and practices. The causal relationships between bullying and individual characteristics are underinvestigated. For example, as mentioned earlier, boys with close relationships with parents, particularly mothers, are likely to be bullied. Oliver et al. (1994) stated that it is not clear whether close relations with parents precede, follow, or both precede and follow victimization. For another example, victims of bullying often have poor academic performance, as shown earlier. Poor academic grades may be the reason to be bullied; they may also be the result of being bullied as argued in Farrington (1991). Until the causal relationships between bullying and individual characteristics are thoroughly studied, many intervention programmes are likely to be at least partly `blind. Finally, some studies also remind researchers that the sources from which researchers obtain information on bullying are important in the examination of bullying in school. For example, Pulkkinen and Pitkanen (1993) demonstrated discrepancies between peer nomination and teacher rating of bullying behaviours.
CONCLUSION There has never been a stronger demand from the public to reduce school violence. Batsche and Knoff (1994) assert that the goal of creating safe schools cannot be achieved unless the issue of bullying is adequately addressed. There is a need for the research community to periodically and systematically review existing working knowledge on bullying. The current review af rms, with more recent research ndings, the general conclusions that: (a) bullying is a wide-spread social problem `that cuts across geographic and socioeconomic boundaries with serious, longterm detrimental effects on both victims and bullies (Clarke and Kiselica, 1997, p. 319); (b) family characteristics affect the development of both bullies and victims; (c) bullies and victims demonstrate personal characteristics that can be useful for prevention and intervention
programmes; and (d) combating bullying requires a long-term, whole-school approach involving efforts from peers, teachers, parents, administrators and counsellors. Different from the previous reviews, the current one emphasized the multifacet perspective to examine the issue of bullying, paying attention to the structure of determinants of bullying from personal to societal factors. This perspective allowed this review to focus on relationships, such as relationships between bullies and families, schools and society; relationships among victims, bullies and bystanders; as well as relationships between counsellors and other school staff in their effort to combat bullying. For example, ndings on victims use of emotional regulation or coping strategies in their interaction with bullies have been integrated into the current review. The attachment pattern of victims with their parents as this relationship affects the victim bully interaction and the participant roles of peers in bullying activities in relation to victims and bullies are other examples. The multifacet perspective also allowed the current review to propose one of the most important characteristics of bullying the victim bully cycle which has barely been discussed in the literature. Because of the focus of the current review on relationships, some relationshipbased theories, such as power (control) theory, social learning theory and theory of mind skills have been identi ed and adopted to explain the possible mechanism of bullying behaviours, with distinctions between these theories being discussed as well. The current review paid close attention to the research methods used in previous quantitative and qualitative studies. It identified the major methodological limitations in previous quantitative and qualitative research respectively, and it suggested more appropriate advanced methods for the examination of bullying in both quantitative and qualitative areas. Also, as discussed above, the current review attempted to examine the previous research in bullying from the multifacet perspective. This examination revealed some major (policy) limitations in previous research and resulted in several major recommendations for further research on bullying in school. Overall, the current review has provided a new starting point for researchers to carry on further investigations on bullying in school.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to the reviewer of this paper who played a critical role in shaping our research work. This review paper was substantially enhanced by the many additional references provided by the reviewer. The authors would also like to thank Xiangming Qiu for her assistance in preparing this review paper.
REFERENCES
AMBERT, A. M. (1994). À qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects: Theoretical and empirical implications, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 119-30. ARORA, C. M. J. (1994). Ìs there any point in trying to reduce bullying in secondary schools?, Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 155 62. BAKER, S. B. (1996). School counseling for the twenty- rst century, 2nd edn. New York: Merrill. BANKS, R. (1997). `Bullying in schools, ERIC Digest, March. BARONE, F. J. (1997). `Bullying in school, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 80 2. BATSCHE, G. M. and KNOFF, H. M. (1994). `Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive problem in the schools, School Psychology Review, 23, 165 74.
BERNSTEIN, J. Y. and WATSON, M. W. (1997). `Children who are targets of bullying, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 483 98. BERTHOLD, K. A. (1996). `Bullying: perceptions of students in Grades 4-6 in a mid-sized Midwestern public school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4265A. BESAG, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. BOULTON, M. J. and UNDERWOOD, K. (1992). `Bully/victim problems among middle school children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73 87. BRANWHITE, T. (1994). `Bullying and student distress: Beneath the tip of the iceberg, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 14, 59 71. BRIGGS, D. (1996). `Turning con icts into learning experiences, Educational Leadership, 54, 60 3. BRYK, A. S. and RAUDENBUSH, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. BUSS, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley. CAMPBELL, A. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York: Basic Books. CARR, R. A. (1988). `The city-wide peer counselling program, Children and Youth Services Review, 10, 217 32. CARTER, S. P. and STEWIN, L. L. (1999). `School violence in the Canadian context: An overview and model for intervention, International Journal of School Violence, 21, 267 277. CARTWRIGHT, N. (1995). `Combating bullying in a secondary school in the United Kingdom, Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 1, 345 53. COIE, J. D., UNDERWOOD, M. and LOCHMAN, J. E. (1991). `Programmatic intervention with aggressive children in the school setting. In: RUBIN, I. and PEPLER, D. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 389 410. COWIE, H. (1998). `Perspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of peer support against bullying, Educational Research and Evaluation, 23, 227 38. CHAMPION, K. M. (1997). `Bullying in middle school: Exploring the individual and interpersonal characteristics of the victim (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 1362A. CHARACH, A., PEPLER, D., and ZIEGLER, S. (1995). `Bullying at school: A Canadian perspective, Education Canada, 35, 12 18. CLARKE, E. A. and KISELICA, M. S. (1997). À systemic counseling approach to the problem of bullying, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 310 15. CRAIG, W. M. (1993). `Naturalistic observations of bullies and victims in the school yard (Doctoral dissertation, York University, 1993), Dissertation Abstracts International , 55, 4139A. CRICK, N. R., CASAS, J. and MOSHER, M. (1997). `Relational and overt aggression in preschool, Developmental Psychology, 33, 579 88. CRICK, N. R. and DODGE, K. A. (1994). À review and reformulation of social informationprocessing mechanisms in childrens social adjustment, Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101. CRICK, N R. and GROTPETER, J. K. (1995). `Relational aggression, gender and socialpsychological adjustment, Child Development , 66, 710 22. CUNNINGHAM, C., CUNNINGHAM, L., MARTORELLI, V., TRAN, A., YOUNG, J. and ZACHARIAS, R. (1998). `The effects of primary division, student-mediated con ict resolution programs on playground aggression, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 653 62. DAUGHTRY, D. and KUNKEL, M. A. (1993). Èxperience of depression in college students: A concept map, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 316-323. DODGE, K. A., COIE, J. D., PETTIT, G. S. and PRICE, J. M. (1990). `Peer status and aggression in boys groups: Developmental and contextual analyses, Child Development , 61, 1289 1309. ERON, L. D. and HUESMANN, L. R. (1984). `The control of aggressive behavior by changes in attitudes, values, and the conditions of learning. In: BLANCHARD, R. J. and BLANCHARD, D. C. (Eds) Advances in the study of aggression , Vol. 1, pp. 139 71. Orlando, FL: Academic. ERON, L. D., HUSEMANN, L. R., DUBOW, E., ROMANOFF, R. and YARMEL, P. W. (1987).
Àggression and its correlates over 22 years. In: CROWELL, D. H. and EVANS, I. M. (Eds) Childhood aggression and violence: Sources of in uence, prevention, and control . New York: Plenum, pp. 249 62. ESLEA, M. and SMITH, P. K. (1998). `The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools, Educational Research, 40, 203 18. FARRINGTON, D. P. (1991). `Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and later life outcomes. In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 5 29. FLOYD, N. M. (1985). `Pick on somebody your own size! Controlling victimization, Pointer, 29, 9 17. GILMARTIN, B. G. (1987). `Peer group antecedents of severe love-shyness in males, Journal of Personality, 55, 467 89. GOLDSTEIN, A. P., SPRAFKIN, R. P., GERSHAW, J. J. and KLEIN, P. (1980). Skillstreaming the adolescent. Champaign, IL: Research Press. GREENBAUM, S. (1988). `What can we do about schoolyard bullying?, Principal, 67, 2, 21 4. HALL, J., HERZBERGER, S. and SKOWRONSKI, K. (1998). Òutcome expectancies and outcome values as predictors of childrens aggression, Aggressive Behavior, 24, 439 54. HAMBURG, D. A. (1993). `The opportunities of early adolescence, Teachers College Record, 94, 466 71. HAZLER, R. J. (1994). `Bullying breeds violence. You can stop it! , Learning, 22, 6, 38 41. HAZLER, R. J., HOOVER, J. H. and OLIVER, R. (1992). `What kids say about bullying, Executive Educator, 20 22. HOOVER, J. H. and JUUL, K. (1993). `Bullying in Europe and the United States, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 2, 25 29. HOOVER, J. H., OLIVER, R. and HAZLER, R. J. (1992). `Bullying: perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwestern USA, School Psychology International , 13, 5 16. HOOVER, J. H., OLIVER, R. L. and THOMSON, K. A. (1993). `Perceived victimization by school bullies: new research and future direction, Journal of Humanistic Education and Development , 32, 76 84. HORNE, A. M. and SOCHERMAN, R. (1996). `Pro le of a bully: Who would do such a thing, Educational Horizons, 74, 77 83. JOHNSTON, L. D., OMALLEY, P. M. and BACHMAN, J. G. (1993). Monitoring the future study for Goal 6 of the National Education Goals: A special report for the National Education Goals Panel. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. KAUKIAINEN, A., BJORKQVIST, K., LAGERSPETZ, K. M. J., OSTERMAN, K., SALMIVALLI, C., FORSBLOM, S. and AHLBOM, A. (1999). `The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression, Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81 9. KELLAM, S. G., REBOK, G. W., IALONGO, N. and MAYER, L. S. (1994). `The course and malleability of aggressive behavior from early rst grade into middle school: Results of a developmental epidemiologically-based preventive trial, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 259 81. KELTIKANGAS-JARVINEN, L. and PAKASIAHTI, L. (1999). `Development of social problem solving strategies and changes in aggressive behavior: A 7-year follow-up from childhood to late adolescence, Aggressive Behavior, 25, 269 79. KIANG, P. N. and KAPLAN, J. (1994). `Where do we stand? Views of racial con ict by Vietnamese American high school students in a black-and-white context, Urban Review , 26, 95 119. KOCHENDERFER, B. and LADD, G. (1996). `Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of school maladjustment?, Child Development , 67, 1293 1305. KOCHENDERFER, B. and LADD, G. (1997). `Victimised childrens responses to peers aggression: Behaviours associated with reduced versus continued victimisation, Development and Psychopathology , 9, 59 73.
KUM-WALKS, D. A. (1996). `Responses to school violence by schools and students (Doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1996), Dissertation Abstracts International , 57, 4303A. LAGERSPETZ, K. M. J. and BJORKVIST, K. (1994). Ìndirect aggression in boys and girls. In: Huesmann, L. R. (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum, pp. 131 50. LAMPERT, J. B. (1997). `Voices and visions: adolescent girls experiences as bullies, targets, and bystanders (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 2986A. LANE, D. A. (1989). `Bullying in school, School Psychology International , 10, 211 15. LOCHMAN, J. E. (1992). `Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: three-year followup and prevention effects, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426 32. LORBER, R., FELTON, D. K. and REID, J. B. (1984). À social learning approach to the reduction of coercive process in child abuse families: A molecular analysis, Advances in Behavior Research and Therapy, 6, 29 45. MACCOBY, E. E. (1986). `Social groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and antisocial behavior in boys and girls. In: OLWEUS, D. BLOCK, J. and RADKE-YARROW, M. (Eds) Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues. Orlando, FL: Academic, pp. 263 84. MAHADY-WILTON, M. M. (1997). Èmotional regulation and display in classroom victims and bullies: Characteristics expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors . Unpublished masters thesis, Queens University, Kingston, Canada. MATSON, J. L. (1989). Social learning approaches to the treatment of emotional problems. Toronto: Lexington Books. MCCARTHY, T. G. (1997). `Bullies and their victims: The killing ground (Doctoral dissertation, University of St. Thomas, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3470A. MOONEY, S. and SMITH, P. K. (1995). `Bullying and child who stammers, British Journal of Special Education, 22, 24 7. MURAKAMI, Y. (1995). `Bullies in the classroom, Japan Quarterly, 32, 407 9. NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL (1993). The National Education Goals report: Volume one. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Of ce. NAYLOR, P. and COWIE, H. (1999). `The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging school bullying: The perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils , Journal of Adolescence, 22, 1 13. NEESE, L. A. (1989). `Psychological maltreatment in schools: emerging issues for counselors, Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 23, 194 200. OCONNELL, P., PEPLER, D. and CRAIG, W. (1999). `Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention, Journal of Adolescence , 22, 437 52. OLIVER, R. L., OAKS, I. N. and HOOVER, J. H. (1994). `Family issues and interventions in bully and victim relationships, School Counselor, 41, 199 202. OLIVER, R. L., YOUNG, T. A. and LASALLE, S. M. (1994). Èarly lessons in bullying and victimization: The help and hindrance of childrens literature, School Counselor, 42, 137 46. OLWEUS, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. OLWEUS, D. (1984). Àggressors and their victims: bullying at school. In: FRUDE, N. and GAULT, H. (Eds) Disruptive behavior disorders in schools. New York: Wiley, pp. 57 76. OLWEUS, D. (1991a). `Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411 48. OLWEUS, D. (1991b). `Victimization among school children. In: BAENNINGER, R. (Ed.) Targets of violence and aggression. Holland: Elsevier Science, pp. 45 102. OLWEUS, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.
OLWEUS, D. (1993b). `Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In: RUBIN, K. H. and ASENDROF, J. B. (Eds) Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. London: Erlbaum, pp. 315 41. OLWEUS, D. (1994). `Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective schoolbased intervention program. In: HUESMANN, L. R. (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. New York: Wiley, pp. 97 130. OSTERMAN, K., BJORKQVIST, K., LAGERSPETZ, K., LANDAU, S., FRACZEK, A. and PASTORELLI, C. (1997). `Sex differences in styles of con ict resolution: A development and cross cultural study with data from Finland, Israel, Italy and Poland . In: FRY, D. and BJORKQVIST, K. (Eds) Cultural variation in con ict resolution. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. PAUKEN, P. D. (1997). `Knowledge and practice of Ohios school administrators regarding studenton-student violence and associated legal liability (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International , 58, 3792A. PERRY, D. G., KUSEL, S. J. and PERRY, L. C. (1988). `Victims of peer aggression, Developmental Psychology, 24, 807 14. POGREBIN, C. L. (1980). Growing up free: Raising your child in the 80s. New York: Bantam Books. PULKKINEN, L. and PITKANEN, T. (1993). `Continuities in aggressive behavior from childhood to adulthood, Aggressive Behavior, 19, 249 63. RANDALL, P. (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge. REMBOLDT, C. (1994a). Solving violence problems in your school: Why a systematic approach is necessary. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute. REMBOLDT, C. (1994b). Violence in schools: The enabling factor. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute. RIGBY, K. (1995). `The motivation of Australian adolescent schoolchildren to engage in group discussions about bullying, Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 773 4. RIGBY, K. (1997). Àttitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children, Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 202 20. RIGBY, K. and SLEE, P. T. (1991). `Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims, Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615 27. ROBERTS, W. B., Jr. and COURSOL, D. H. (1996). `Strategies for intervention with childhood and adolescent victims of bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings, Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30, 204 12. ROLAND, E. (1989). `Bullying: the Scandinavian research tradition. In: TATTUM, D. P. and LANE, D. A. (Eds) Bullying in schools. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham, pp. 21 32. SALMIVALLI, C. (1999). `Particiapnt role approach to school bullying: implications for intervention, Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453 9. SALMIVALLI, C., KAUKIAINEN, A. and LAGERSPETZ, K. (1998). Àggression in the social relations of school-aged girls and boys. In: SLEE, P. and RIGBY, K. (Eds) Childrens peer relations. London: Routledge, pp. 60 75. SALMIVALLI, C., LAGERSPETZ, K., BJORKQVIST, K., OSTERMAN, K. and KAUKIANEN, A. (1996). `Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group, Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1 15. SCHWARTZ, D., DODGE, K., PETTIT, G. S. and BATES, J. E. (1997). `The early socialization of aggressive victims of bullying, Child Development , 68, 665 75. SERBIN, L. A., MOSKOWITZ, D. S., SCHWARTZMAN, A. E. and LEDINGHAM, J. E. (1991). Àggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children in adolescence: Into the next generation. In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 55 78. SHARP, S. and SMITH, P. K. (1991). `Bullying in UK Schools: the DES Shef eld bullying project, Early Child Development and Care, 77, 47 55. SIANN, G., CALLAGHAN, M., LOCKHART, R. and RAWSON, L. (1993). `Bullying: teachers views and school effects, Educational Studies, 19, 307 21.
SLEE, P. T. (1994). `Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peer victimization, Child Psychology and Human Development , 25, 97 107. SLEE, P. T. and RIGBY, K. (1994). `Peer victimization at school, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 19, 3 10. SMITH, P. K. (1991). `The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimisation in school peer groups, Psychologist , 48, 243 -8. SMITH, P. K. and SHARP, S. (Eds) (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. SOBSEY, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities: The end of silent acceptance? Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. SUTTON, J., SMITH, P. K. and SWETTENHAM, J. (1999). `Bullying and theory of mind : A critique of the `social skills de cit view of anti-social behavior, Social Development , 8, 117 27. SUTTON, J., SMITH, P. K. and SWETTENHAM, J. (1999). `Social cognition and bullying: Social inadeqacy or skilled manipulation?, British Journal of Developmental Psyhology, 17, 435 50. TROCHIM, W. M. K. (1989). Àn introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1 16. TROCHIM, W. M. K., COOK, J. A. and SETZE, R. J. (1994). Ùsing concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staffs views of a supported employment program for individuals with severe mental illness, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 766 75. TROY, M. and SROUFE, L. A. (1987). `Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment relationship history, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 166 72. WHITNEY, I. and SMITH, P. K. (1993). À survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools, Educational Research, 35, 3 25. WHITNEY, I., NABUZOKA, D. and SMITH, P. K. (1992). `Bullying in schools: Mainstream and special needs, Support for Learning, 7, 3 7. WILLMS, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington, DC: Falmer. WINTERS, D. L. (1997). `Levels of violence in Pennsylvania public schools and efforts to control and prevent violence (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International , 58, 2020A.
CORRESPONDENCE Dr. Xin Ma, 6 102 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5 Canada Tel: (780) 492-2621. Fax: (780) 492-4345. E-mail: xin.ma@ualberta.ca

Bullying in School. Nature, Effects and Remedies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bullying in School. Nature, Effects and Remedies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Papers in Education 16(3) 2001, pp.

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies

248 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 249

250 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 251

252 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 253

254 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 255

256 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 257

258 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 259

260 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 261

262 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 263

264 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 265

266 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 267

268 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 269

270 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

You might also like