literature review bullying

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

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

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

Scientific Electronic Library Online

Other Literature Sources

scite Smart Citations
MedlinePlus Health Information
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

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

Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review

September 2018
Ciência & Saúde Coletiva

Universidade de Franca

Pontifical Catholic University of Campinas

University of São Paulo

Abstract and Figures

Discover the world's research

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

Lara E. Law

Thomas Nielsen

Aline Pestana Santos

Bobby K. Cheon
Meegan R Smith
Julia M.P. Bittner

Ahlem Mtiraoui
Dorra Ennamouchi

Angelina Forde
Priscilla dos Reis Oliveira

Vários autores

Elisa Poskiparta
Estud Psicolog
Isabela Zaine
M.J.D. Reis
Ricardo da Costa Padovani
EUR J PUBLIC HEALTH

Ioana Galea Beldean
Rev Bras Epidemiol

Claudio Crespo

Patrick M. Vivier
Annie Gjelsvik

EDUC PSYCHOL-UK

Rebecca Alamaa
AGGRESSIVE BEHAV
Ralf Wölfer

AUST J GUID COUNS

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

A Review of Behavior-Based Interventions that Address Bullying, Aggressive, and Inappropriate Student Behavior during Recess

LITERATURE REVIEW
Published: 31 March 2020
Volume 43 , pages 377–391, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

Laura Kern 1 ,
Brandi Simonsen 2 &
Sarah Wilkinson 2

629 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The purpose of this literature review is to examine the research base of interventions focused on reducing bullying, aggressive, or inappropriate behavior in recess settings through behavioral-based interventions. This review extends the literature by synthesizing findings from experimental, quasi-experimental, and single-case research on the characteristics and components of effective interventions. Many of the interventions focused on social skills training of the students, with a few addressing the adult behavior of active supervision. Findings suggest that more research is needed in school recess settings to determine the effective components of interventions for students, especially for social skills, and to address the adult behavior of active supervision.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Bullying: A School Mental Health Perspective

What Works for Whom in School-Based Anti-bullying Interventions? An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

School-based interventions for aggression and defiance in youth: a framework for evidence-based practice.

Anderson-Butcher, D., Newsome, W. S., & Nay, S. (2003). Social skills intervention during elementary school recess: A visual analysis. Children and Schools, 25 , 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/25.3.135 .

Article Google Scholar

Barrera, M. J., Biglan, A., Taylor, T. K., Gunn, B. K., Smolkowski, K., Black, C., et al. (2002). Early elementary school intervention to reduce conduct problems: A randomized trial with Hispanic and non-Hispanic children. Prevention Science, 3 , 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015443932331 .

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Bender, D., & Lösel, F. (2011). Bullying at school as a predictor of delinquency, violence and other anti-social behaviour in adulthood. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21 , 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.799 .

Cash, A. H., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2015). Observations of student behavior in nonclassroom settings: A multilevel examination of location, density, and school context. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35 , 597–627. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614562835 .

Christopher, J. S., Hansen, D. J., & MacMillan, V. M. (1991). Effectiveness of a peer-helper intervention to increase children's social interactions: Generalization, maintenance, and social validity. Behavior Modification, 15 , 22–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445591015100 .

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar

Copeland, W., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry, 70 , 419–426. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.504 .

Craig, W. M., Pepler, D., & Atlas, R. (2000). Observations of bullying in the playground and in the classroom. School Psychology International, 21 , 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300211002 .

Cunningham, C. E., Cunningham, L. J., Martorelli, V., Tran, A., Young, J., & Zacharias, R. (1998). The effects of primary division, student-mediated conflict resolution programs on playground. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39 , 653–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00365 .

Dougherty, B. S., Fowler, S. A., & Paine, S. C. (1985). The use of peer monitors to reduce negative interaction during recess. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18 , 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-141 .

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., Stoolmiller, M., Fetrow, R. A., Beidel, D., Brown, T. A., et al. (2003). Outcomes during middle school for an elementary school-based preventive intervention for conduct problems: Follow-up results from a randomized trial. Behavior Therapy, 34 , 535–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(03)80034-5 .

Fite, P. J., Williford, A., Cooley, J. L., DePaolis, K., Rubens, S. L., & Vernberg, E. M. (2013). Patterns of victimization locations in elementary school children: Effects of grade level and gender. Child and Youth Care Forum, 42 , 585–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9219-9 .

Fowler, S. A., Dougherty, B. S., Kirby, K. C., & Kohler, F. W. (1986). Role reversals: An analysis of therapeutic effects achieved with disruptive boys during their appointments as peer monitors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19 , 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1986.19-437 .

Franzen, K., & Kamps, D. (2008). The utilization and effects of positive behavior support strategies on an urban school playground. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10 , 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708316260 .

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. S., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the steps to respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41 , 479–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.3.479 .

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101 , 466–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013839 .

Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Gresham, F. M., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2001). Interpreting outcomes of social skills training for students with high-incidence disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67 , 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700303 .

Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P. Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., Frey, K., & Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school. A randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277 , 1605–1611.

Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41 , 441–455.

Haydon, T., & Scott, T. M. (2008). Using common sense in common settings: Active supervision and precorrection in the morning gym. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 , 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208314491 .

Hoff, K. E., & DuPaul, G. J. (1998). Reducing disruptive behavior in general education classrooms: The use of self-management strategies. School Psychology Review, 27 , 290–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21666 .

Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., DeGue, S. M., Wolfe, M., & Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 , e491–e509. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864 .

Kamps, D., Kravits, T., Stolze, J., & Swaggart, B. (1999). Prevention strategies for at-risk students and students with EBD in urban elementary schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7 , 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669900700306 .

Kern, L., & Sugai, G. (2014). Addressing bullying behavior: A descriptive literature review of school-based interventions. Center for Behavioral Education and Research . Storrs: Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut.

Kumpulainen, K. (2008). Psychiatric conditions associated with bullying. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 , 121–132.

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J., Menzies, H. M., Doukas, G. L., Munton, S. M., & Gregg, R. M. (2003). Social skills instruction for students at risk for antisocial behavior: The effects of small-group instruction. Behavioral Disorders, 28 , 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/019874290302800308

Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998). Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27 , 446–459.

Lewis, T. J., Colvin, G., & Sugai, G. (2000). The effects of pre-correction and active supervision on the recess behavior of elementary students. Education and Treatment of Children, 23 , 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021162906622 .

Lewis, T. J., Powers, L. J., Kelk, M. J., & Newcomer, L. L. (2002). Reducing problem behaviors on the playground: An investigation of the application of schoolwide positive behavior supports. Psychology in the Schools, 39 , 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10029 .

Low, S., Frey, K. S., & Brockman, C. J. (2010). Gossip on the playground: Changes associated with universal intervention, retaliation beliefs, and supportive friends. School Psychology Review, 39 , 536–551.

Marchant, M., Young, K. R., Lindberg, J., Fisher, A., & Solano, B. (2012). A treatment package for reducing aggression and improving playground behavior. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 13 , 5–25.

McConaughy, S. H., Kay, P. J., & Fitzgerald, M. (1998). Preventing SED through parent–teacher action research and social skills instruction: First-year outcomes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6 , 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342669800600202 .

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23 , 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26 .

Miller, M. C., Cooke, N. L., Test, D. W., & White, R. (2003). Effects of friendship circles on the social interactions of elementary age students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12 , 167–184.

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 .

Murphy, H. A., Hutchinson, J. M., & Bailey, J. S. (1983). Behavioral school psychology goes outdoors: The effect of organized games on playground aggression. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16 , 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1983.16-29 .

Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA , 285 , 2094–2100. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.16.2094 .

Nelson, R., Smith, D., & Colvin, G. (1995). The effects of a peer-mediated self-evaluation procedure on the recess behavior of students with behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 16 , 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259501600206 .

Reid, J. B., Eddy, J. M., Fetrow, R. A., & Stoolmiller, M. (1999). Description and immediate impacts of a preventive intervention for conduct problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 , 483–517. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022181111368 .

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). Participant roles in bullying behaviour and their association with thoughts of ending one’s life. Crisis, 31 , 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000020 .

Samalot-Rivera, A., & Porretta, D. (2013). The influence of social skills instruction on sport and game related behaviours of students with emotional or behavioural disorders. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 18 , 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2011.631004 .

Schneider, B. H. (1991). A comparison of skill building and desensitization strategies for intervention with aggressive children. Aggressive Behavior, 17 , 301–311. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2337(1991)17:6<301::AID-AB2480170602>3.0.CO;2-8 .

Slattery, L. C., George, H. P., & Kern, L. (2019). Defining the word bullying: Inconsistencies and lack of clarity among current definitions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63 , 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1579164 .

Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48 , 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370304800905 .

Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33 , 547–560.

Spaulding, S. A., Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., May, S. L., Emeldi, M., Tobin, T. J., & Sugai, G. (2010). Schoolwide social-behavioral climate, student problem behavior, and related administrative decisions: Empirical patterns from 1,510 schools nationwide. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions , 12 , 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708329011 .

Stoolmiller, M., Eddy, J. M., & Reid, J. B. (2000). Detecting and describing preventive intervention effects in a universal school-based randomized trial targeting delinquent and violent behavior. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68 , 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.2.296 .

Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7 , 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1 .

Ttofi, M., Farrington, D. P., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). The predictive efficacy of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 21 , 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.808 .

U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. (2016 ). Student reports of bullying: Findings from the 2015 school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey web tables . Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017015.pdf

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161 , 78–88. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78 .

Pack, C., White, A., Raczynski, K., & Wang, A. (2011). Evaluation of the safe school ambassadors program: A student-led approach to reducing mistreatment and bullying in schools. The Clearing House, 84 , 127–133.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA

Brandi Simonsen & Sarah Wilkinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Kern .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kern, L., Simonsen, B. & Wilkinson, S. A Review of Behavior-Based Interventions that Address Bullying, Aggressive, and Inappropriate Student Behavior during Recess. Educ. Treat. Child. 43 , 377–391 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00018-y

Download citation

Published : 31 March 2020

Issue Date : December 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00018-y

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Aggressive and bullying behavior
Unstructured areas
Social skills training
Active supervision
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Research article
Open access
Published: 14 December 2021

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

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

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

108k Accesses

18 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Participants

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

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

Study outcome

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

Primary exposure

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

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

Statistical analyses

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

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

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

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

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

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

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

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

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

Strengths and limitations

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

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

Availability of data and materials

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

Code availability

Not applicable.

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

Article Google Scholar

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

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

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

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

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

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

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

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

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

Article PubMed Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

Håkan Källmén

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

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

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

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

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

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Mental health
Adolescents
School-related factors
Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

Submission enquiries: [email protected]

This journal

The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A Systematic Review

William Hall

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Search for more articles by this author

Objective : Bullying threatens the mental and educational well-being of students. Although anti-bullying policies are prevalent, little is known about their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the methodological characteristics and summarizes substantive findings of studies examining the effectiveness of school bullying policies. Method : Searches of 11 bibliographic databases yielded 489 studies completed since January 1, 1995. Following duplicate removal and double-independent screening based on a priori inclusion criteria, 21 studies were included for review. Results : Substantially more educators perceive anti-bullying policies to be effective rather than ineffective. Whereas several studies show that the presence or quality of policies is associated with lower rates of bullying among students, other studies found no such associations between policy presence or quality and reductions in bullying. Consistent across studies, this review found that schools with anti-bullying policies that enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity were associated with better protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students. Specifically, LGBTQ students in schools with such policies reported less harassment and more frequent and effective intervention by school personnel. Findings are mixed regarding the relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to general bullying. Conclusions : Anti-bullying policies might be effective at reducing bullying if their content is based on evidence and sound theory and if they are implemented with a high level of fidelity. More research is needed to improve on limitations among extant studies.

Bullying in schools is a pervasive threat to the well-being and educational success of students. Bullying refers to unwanted aggressive behaviors enacted intentionally over time by an individual or group using some form of power to cause physical and/or psychological harm to another individual or group in a shared social context (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014 ; Olweus, 2013 ). Bullying is also a widespread phenomenon. A meta-analysis of 82 studies conducted in 22 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Southern Africa, East Asia, and Australia and Oceania found that 53% of youth were involved in bullying as bullies, victims, or both bullies and victims (Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ).

Negative Outcomes Connected with Bullying

Involvement in bullying as perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders has been linked with deleterious outcomes by both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Youths who are bullied can experience immediate negative effects that include physical injury, humiliation, sadness, rejection, and helplessness (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2009 ). Over time, a number of mental and behavioral health problems can emerge, including low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and behavior, conduct problems, psychosomatic problems, psychotic symptoms, and physical illness (Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010 ; Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003 ; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009 ; Kim & Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010 ; Reijntjes et al., 2011 ; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011a ). In addition, students who have been bullied may not feel safe at school and may disengage from the school community due to fear and sadness, which may, in turn, contribute to higher rates of absenteeism and lower academic performance (Arseneault et al., 2006 ; Buhs & Ladd, 2001 ; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006 ; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005 ; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000 ; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010 ).

Youths who bully also face psychosocial difficulties. These youths often grow up in harsh social environments with few resources (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ), and bullies often lack impulse control and empathy for others (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009 ; van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015 ). Students who bully are more likely to skip school, perform poorly, and drop out (Jankauskiene, Kardelis, Sukys, & Kardeliene, 2008 ; Ma, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009 ). Bullying perpetration also is associated with depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and behavior, and violent and criminal behavior (e.g., assault, robbery, vandalism, carrying weapons, and rape; Dake et al., 2003 ; Kim & Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek et al., 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, & Lösel, 2012 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011b ). Compared to nonperpetrators, students who bully have an increased risk of violent and criminal behaviors into adulthood. A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found that school bullies were 2.5 times more likely to engage in criminal offending over an 11-year follow-up period (Ttofi et al., 2011b ).

Other youths involved in bullying include bully–victims and bystanders. Bully–victims are students who have been bullied but also engage in bullying others. Bully–victims can experience a combination of internalizing and externalizing problems (Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010 ). Student bystanders are present in up to 90% of bullying incidents (Atlas & Pepler, 1998 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001 ). Youths who witness bullying often report emotional distress, including increased heart rate and higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger when recalling bullying incidents (Barhight, Hubbard, & Hyde, 2013 ; Janson & Hazler, 2004 ). Thus, across the literature, bullying is associated with problematic outcomes for perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders alike.

Policy as an Intervention for Bullying

Perspectives vary on how to best address bullying in schools. Intervention strategies have included suspending and expelling bullies, training teachers on intervening, teaching empathy and respect to students through classroom lessons, maintaining constant adult supervision throughout school settings, collaborating with parents about student behavior, and enacting school-wide policies about bullying. In the United States, policies addressing bullying emerged in 1999 following the Columbine High School shootings. These policies have spread due to increased awareness and concern about student violence and school safety (Birkland & Lawrence, 2009 ). A policy is a system of principles created by governing bodies or public officials to achieve specific outcomes by guiding action and decision making. Policy is an umbrella term that refers to various regulatory measures, including laws, statutes, policies, regulations, and rules. These terms vary based on the jurisdiction and legal authority of the individual or group who established the policy. In the United States, K–12 education policy, which includes school bullying policy, can be established at the federal, state, and local levels (Mead, 2009 ).

One advantage of policy interventions for bullying is that they can influence student, teacher, and administrator behavior as well as school organizational practices. For example, school bullying policies typically prohibit certain behaviors, such as threatening and harassing other students or retaliating against students who witness and then report bullying incidents. Policies may also require behaviors, such as requiring teachers to report bullying incidents to administrators and requiring administrators to investigate reports of bullying. Further, policies may promote certain behaviors by explicitly stating positive behavioral expectations for students or discourage behaviors by explicitly stating punishments associated with aggressive behaviors. At the school level, policies can guide organizational practices, such as establishing bullying incident reporting procedures and creating school-safety teams tasked with developing and executing school-safety plans. Thus, bullying policies can influence individual and organizational behaviors.

Another advantage of bullying policies is that they are upstream interventions that provide a foundation for downstream interventions. In other words, policies are systems-level interventions that typically require more targeted intervention programs, practices, and services at the organizational, group, and individual levels (McKinlay, 1998 ). For example, a bullying policy may be adopted within a state or district; the policy then applies to all schools within the state or district. This policy may require training all school employees on bullying prevention strategies, integrating bullying awareness and education into classroom lessons and curricula, and providing counseling for students involved in bullying. Thus, policy lays the groundwork for an array of more specific and targeted interventions to be deployed in schools by outlining goals and directives in the policy document.

Policy design is important because the content influences a cascade of actions throughout school systems, which may result in positive or negative outcomes. For example, a bullying policy that requires schools to provide counseling services and positive behavioral reinforcement to students who perpetrate bullying is markedly different than a policy that requires schools to suspend or expel students who have carried out multiple acts of bullying. Research shows that overly harsh and punitive policies (e.g., “three strikes and you’re out” policies or “zero-tolerance” policies) are not effective at reducing aggression or improving school safety (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ). Thus, bullying policies should be crafted and revised using evidence-based strategies.

Percentage of State Anti-Bullying Laws That Included Key Policy Components Identified by the U.S. Department of Education

Policy Component	%
Purpose of the policy	85
Applicability or scope of the policy	96
Prohibition of bullying behaviors	94
Enumeration of protected social classes or statuses	37
Requirement for districts to implement policies	98
Review of district policies by the state	43
Definition of bullying behaviors prohibited	63
Procedure for reporting bullying incidents	78
Procedure for investigating bullying incidents	67
Procedure for maintaining records of bullying incidents	39
Consequences for bullying perpetrators	91
Mental health services for victims and/or perpetrators	28
Communication of the policy to students, parents, and employees	91
Training for school personnel on bullying intervention and prevention	85
Data collection and monitoring bullying of incidents	39
Assurance of right to pursue legal remedies for victims	39

Note. The percentages are based on 46 state bullying laws passed between 1999 and 2011. Source: Stuart-Cassel, Bell, & Springer, 2011 .

Despite the widespread adoption and application of anti-bullying policies within the United States and in other countries, relatively few studies have examined the effectiveness of these interventions. Instead, research has focused on programmatic interventions (e.g., Cool Kids Program, FearNot!, Friendly Schools, KiVa, and Steps to Respect). Numerous systematic or meta-analytic reviews have been completed on the effectiveness of programmatic interventions for school bullying (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2007 ; Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014 ; Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007 ; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2013 ; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008 ; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 ). However, a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying has not been completed.

Purpose of the Current Review

Given the proportion of students directly or indirectly involved in bullying, the array of educational and psychological problems associated with bullying, the extensive adoption of anti-bullying policies, and the absence of a review of the research on these policy interventions, the need for a systematic review on this topic is imperative. The following questions drove this review: Are school policies effective in reducing or preventing bullying behavior among students? What is the state or quality of the research on school bullying policy effectiveness? What additional research is needed on school bullying policy effectiveness? Given these questions, the objectives of this review were threefold: to systematically identify, examine, and evaluate the methodological characteristics of studies investigating the effectiveness of school bullying policies; to summarize the substantive findings from these studies; and to provide recommendations for future research.

In preparation of this review, the author adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009 ). Before undertaking the search for relevant studies, the author developed protocols for bibliographic database searches, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a data extraction tool. In addition, this review was registered with PROSPERO, an international database of systematic reviews regarding health and social well-being.

Search Procedure

A behavioral and social sciences librarian was consulted to assist with developing a search string and identifying relevant computerized bibliographic databases in which to search. The following search string was used to search all databases for studies published between January 1, 1995, and November 8, 2014: school AND bullying AND (law OR policy OR policies OR legislation OR statute) AND (effect OR effects OR effectiveness OR efficacy OR impact OR influence). The search of multiple databases increased the likelihood of identifying all possible studies falling within the scope of the review; thus, the author searched 11 databases, some of which included gray literature sources (e.g., conference papers, government reports, and unpublished papers). Searches were performed in the following databases via EBSCO using terms searched within the abstracts: CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Educational Full Text, ERIC (Education Research Information Center), PsycINFO, and Social Work Abstracts. The following databases were searched via ProQuest using terms searched within the titles, abstracts, and subject headings: ASSIA (Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts), Dissertations & Theses Full Text, and Social Services Abstracts. In addition, the Conference Proceedings Citations Index was searched using terms searched within titles, abstracts, and keywords. Finally, PubMed was searched using terms searched within titles and abstracts. These more formal bibliographic database searches were supplemented with internet searches using Google Scholar.

Inclusion Criteria

Studies were included in the review if they met the following criteria: (a) collected data and reported results on the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying in school settings; (b) written in English; and (c) completed since January 1, 1995. Policy interventions for bullying were defined as statutes, policies, regulations, or rules established at the national, state, district, or school levels with the goal of reducing bullying in K–12 schools. Effectiveness referred to the extent to which a policy intervention prevented or reduced student bullying behavior. Given that school bullying policy is a nascent area of empirical inquiry with relatively few empirical investigations and evaluations, the author did not use stringent exclusion criteria in terms of study designs and methods. Only studies written in English were included due to the researchers’ language proficiency. Finally, the time period selected allowed for a comprehensive and contemporary review of the empirical literature completed in this area over the past 20 years.

Study Screening

Flow diagram depicting the identification, screening, and inclusion of studies.

Data Extraction

A data extraction sheet was developed to assist with identifying and collecting relevant information from the 21 included studies. Information extracted included the citation, purpose of the study, study design, sampling strategy and location, response rate, sample size and characteristics, measurement of relevant variables, analyses performed, and results and findings. The author extracted this information and a research assistant then compared the completed extraction sheets with the source documents to assess the accuracy of the extractions. There were only six points of disagreement between the extractor and checker, which they then resolved together by examining the source documents and extractions simultaneously.

Data Synthesis

Initial review of the included studies revealed that a quantitative synthesis, such as a meta-analysis, was not advisable due to the methodological heterogeneity of the studies and differences in approaches to evaluating policy effectiveness. Thus, a narrative thematic synthesis approach was used (Thomas, Harden, & Newman, 2012 ). The substantive findings on policy effectiveness were first categorized based on the outcome evaluated and then synthesized within each category.

A total of 21 studies were included in this review: 9 peer-reviewed journal articles, 6 research reports that were not peer-reviewed, 5 doctoral dissertations, and 1 master’s thesis. A summary of the methodological characteristics of these studies is presented—including a synthesis of the substantive findings regarding the effectiveness of school bullying policies—in Table S1 (available online) .

Methodological Characteristics of the Studies

Of the 21 studies, 12 (57%) used mixed methods, 8 (38%) used quantitative methods, and 1 (5%) used qualitative methods. All studies relied on cross-sectional designs. Most studies (65%) used convenience sampling, whereas the remaining studies used some form of probability sampling. More than half (57%) of studies used national samples, whereas 24% used samples from a single city or local region, 15% used statewide samples, and 5% used samples from areas in multiple countries. Over 80% of studies sampled participants in the United States, with other studies drawing participants from Europe, Australia, East Asia, and Southwest Asia. The most common recruitment sites were schools, followed by listservs, websites, community groups or organizations, professional associations, and personal contacts. Most studies reported participant response rates which varied from 21% to 98%, and the average response rate across studies was 57% ( SD = 29%). Eight studies did not report response rates.

Across studies, sample sizes varied from 6 to 8,584 participants. Only the qualitative study had fewer than 50 participants, and two studies had between 50 and 100 participants. Most studies had relatively large samples with more than 500 respondents. The most commonly used participants were students, followed by teachers. Other respondents included administrators, school psychologists, school counselors, education support professionals, and parents. About one third of studies included multiple participant groups (e.g., students and teachers). Most studies (62%) recruited participants from K–12 settings, whereas other studies recruited participants from a single school level: elementary, middle, or high school. Among adult participants, about 75% were female and 90% were White. These percentages are similar to those reported by the U.S. Department of Education, which show that 76% of teachers are female and 82% are White (Snyder & Dillow, 2013 ).

Samples of students were diverse in terms of race/ethnicity, with most studies consisting of about two-thirds White participants as well as Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, Asian, Native American Indian, Middle Eastern, and multiracial students. In addition, student samples were closer to having equal proportions of males and females. Five studies included student participants who were exclusively lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), whereas 6 studies did not report information about student sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, studies typically did not measure or report participant national origin, immigrant/citizenship status, religious identity, socioeconomic status, or ability/disability status. Finally, most students were high school students.

Evaluation methods

All studies relied on self-report data to evaluate school bullying policy effectiveness. However, studies varied based on the outcome used in their evaluations: Eight studies examined school members’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, 5 studies examined student bullying perpetration and/or victimization behaviors, 6 studies investigated anti-LGBTQ bullying victimization, and 2 studies considered educator intervention in bullying. The level of policies evaluated also varied: Eleven studies examined school-level policies, 3 studies examined district-level policies, 3 studies examined state laws, 3 studies examined both state laws and school-level policies, and one study examined a national policy.

Studies also varied in terms of the analytic approaches used to evaluate effectiveness: Nine studies used bivariate analyses, 8 studies used descriptive statistics of perceived effectiveness, 3 studies used multivariate analyses, and one study used both bivariate and multivariate analyses. Studies that used a bivariate analytic approach compared measures of teachers’ responsiveness to bullying or measures of student bullying between those in schools with and without anti-bullying policies or between schools with high- versus low-quality anti-bullying policies. In these studies, distinctions between high- and low-quality policies were made by the researchers in each study using content analyses of policy strategies that were theoretically and empirically associated with effectiveness in the bullying literature (e.g., having a definition of bullying, ensuring adult supervision of students, and outlining consequences for bullies; Ordonez, 2006 ; Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). Policy content analysis scores were then used to distinguish between high- and low-quality policies. Descriptive statistical analyses of effectiveness entailed participants responding to a single self-report item about their perceptions of policy effectiveness (e.g., “How effective do you feel that your school’s anti-bullying policy is in reducing bullying?”), with Likert-type response options related to agreement/disagreement or categorical response options (e.g., yes or no). Multivariate analytic approaches primarily used student bullying scores as the dependent variable and either a continuous anti-bullying policy score or a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not the school had an anti-bullying policy as the independent variable. Continuous school bullying policy scores were based on either a set of items about the perceived presence of an anti-bullying policy (e.g., “I think my school clearly set forth anti-bullying policies and rules”) or a content analysis of policy documents to identify the presence of criteria or strategies associated with effectiveness (e.g., having a definition of bullying, establishing procedures and consequences for bullies, having educational events about the school’s bullying guidelines, ensuring adult supervision in school areas prone to bullying, and formulating a school task group to coordinate anti-bullying efforts).

The measures used to assess bullying among students varied; some studies used established scales (e.g., Olweus Bullying Questionnaire), whereas other studies used items developed by the researchers. The number of items used to measure bullying varied from 3 to 23 ( M = 18.2, SD = 6.1). Of the 11 studies that measured bullying, the majority measured bullying victimization ( n = 8). Only 2 studies measured both bullying victimization and perpetration, and one study measured just perpetration. In terms of the types of bullying measured, 5 studies measured physical, verbal, social, electronic, and sexual bullying; 3 studies measured physical, verbal, and social bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and electronic bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and property bullying; and one study measured verbal bullying. In addition to student bullying, educators’ responsiveness to bullying was another outcome variable that was used in 8 studies. Only one study used a scale to measure educator responsiveness, and the remaining 7 studies used one to four items regarding educators responding to student bullying.

Results on Policy Effectiveness

Given that the 21 studies differed on the outcomes used in their evaluations of school bullying policy effectiveness, substantive results are presented by each outcome category: school members’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, student bullying perpetration and/or victimization, anti-LGBTQ bullying victimization, and educator intervention in bullying.

Perceptions of policy effectiveness

Eight studies reported results on participants’ perceptions of policy effectiveness. Results showed that 5% to 88% ( M = 49.4%, SD = 33.4%) of educators perceived school bullying policies to be effective to some degree, 4% to 79% ( M = 24.5%, SD = 23.6%) of educators perceived policies to be ineffective , and 16% to 70% ( M = 51.3%, SD = 30.6%) of educators were uncertain about policy effectiveness (Barnes, 2010 ; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova, 2013 ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Isom, 2014 ; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Only one study measured students’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, and results showed that they perceived policies to be moderately effective (Ju, 2012 ). In addition, only one of the 21 studies collected multiple waves of data, although different sets of respondents were used at each of the two waves (Samara & Smith, 2008 ). In this study, researchers examined perceived effectiveness before and after the passage of an anti-bullying policy; however, there were no significant changes in perceived effectiveness.

Student bullying perpetration and victimization

Five studies reported findings on the influence of policy on general student bullying outcomes. Two of these 5 studies examined policy content in relation to effectiveness. One study found that students in schools with high-quality bullying policies reported lower rates of verbal and physical bullying victimization than students in schools with low-quality policies; however, no differences were found for social/relational or property bullying victimization (Ordonez, 2006 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; procedures and consequences for bullies; plans for disseminating the policy to students, school personnel, and parents; programs or practices that encourage acceptance of diversity, empathy for others, respect toward others, peer integration, and responsible use of power; supervision of students in school areas prone to bullying (e.g., playground, cafeteria, and hallways); and socio-emotional skills training for victims and bullies (Ordonez, 2006 ). Similarly, another study found lower rates of verbal, physical, and property bullying victimization among students in schools with high-quality bullying policies, yet higher rates of social/relational bullying perpetration (Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; recognition of negative outcomes associated with bullying; discussion of locations where bullying can occur; evaluation of the prevalence of bullying; involvement of stakeholders in policy development; supervision of students in school areas; formulation of a school task group to coordinate anti-bullying efforts; classroom rules about bullying; classroom sessions about bullying; discussion of bullying at PTA/PTO meetings; involvement of parents in bullying prevention efforts; and follow-up with victims and bullies after incidents (Woods & Wolke, 2003 ).

Other studies examined associations between policy presence and bullying outcomes. Three significant or marginally significant ( p ≤ .095) associations were found: the presence of an anti-bullying policy was inversely related to general bullying victimization, social/relational bullying perpetration, and verbal bullying perpetration (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Lee, 2007 ). Conversely, eight nonsignificant associations were found between school bullying policy presence and scores of general, physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying perpetration, as well as physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying victimization (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Khoury-Kassabri, 2011 ; Lee, 2007 ). In addition, having a bullying policy was not associated with increases in general bullying perpetration or victimization (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ).

Anti-LGBTQ bullying

Six studies with rather large samples of primarily LGBTQ students consistently found that compared to students in schools without an anti-bullying policy or with an anti-bullying policy that did not explicitly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, students in schools with comprehensive anti-bullying policies that included protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of anti-LGBTQ bullying, more school personnel frequently intervening when anti-LGBTQ comments were made in their presence, and more school personnel being effective in their anti-LGBTQ bullying responses (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014 ; Phoenix et al., 2006 ). These differences were consistent in analyses of both local anti-bullying policies and state anti-bullying laws.

Educator intervention in bullying

Educators play a key role in reducing bullying behavior among students. One study found that compared to those in schools without a bullying policy, educators in schools with bullying policies were more likely to enlist the help of parents and colleagues in responding to a bullying incident and were less likely to ignore bullying (Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008 ). Conversely, a large, national study of educators found no relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ comfort intervening in both general and discriminatory bullying (O’Brennan, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2014 ).

The findings are discussed according to the research questions that drove the review.

Are Policies Effective at Reducing Bullying?

Educators were divided in their perceptions of the effectiveness of policies for school bullying; however, on average, about twice as many educators reported that policies were effective to some degree as those who reported that they were not effective. Nonetheless, descriptive summaries of perceptions of effectiveness are typically not viewed as compelling sources of evidence for the effectiveness of an intervention (Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ). However, educators are considered key informants who know what goes on in schools.

Two studies found lower rates of verbal and physical bullying in schools with high- rather than low-quality policies; however, in terms of social/relational bullying, one study found no difference, and another study found higher rates of social/relational bullying in schools with high-quality policies (Ordonez, 2006 ; Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). This tentative finding suggests that improving the quality of bullying policies may be effective for direct and overt forms of bullying (e.g., hitting and name-calling) but may not effect social/relational bullying. Across the two studies, elements of policy quality associated with decreases in verbal and physical bullying included a comprehensive definition of bullying; school and classroom rules and procedures about bullying; plans for communicating the policy within the school community; supervision of students across school areas; involvement of parents in anti-bullying efforts; involvement of multiple stakeholders in school-wide anti-bullying actions; and working with and educating students around social, emotional, and behavioral issues to prevent bullying. Extant policies may overemphasize traditional notions of what bullying is (i.e., physical and verbal harassment) and underemphasize or neglect to address more recent understandings of social/relational aggression as bullying. In addition, direct and overt forms of bullying may be more amenable to policy interventions because educators can directly observe these behaviors and then proceed with their response, whereas social/relational bullying often occurs away from the direct supervision of educators (Young, Nelson, Hottle, Warburton, & Young, 2013 ). Educators have reported difficulty in responding to bullying incidents that they did not witness (Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006 ). Similarly, although many educators are aware of cyberbullying, few take steps to address it and many are uncertain about how to confront cyberbullying, which often occurs outside of school (Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012 ; Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012 ; Vandebosch, Poels, & Deboutte, 2014 ). Nonetheless, educators can address cyberbullying occurring on or off school grounds if the aggression creates a hostile school environment and substantially disrupts a student’s learning environment (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ).

Findings among the few studies that examined associations between policy presence and student bullying were mixed, although more nonsignificant than significant associations were found. At first glance, one may conclude from these findings that the presence of bullying policies does not influence bullying among students; however, the presence of a policy is necessary but is not sufficient to affect student behavior. Indeed, after a policy has been adopted, it must be put into practice. The mere adoption or presence of a policy does not mean that it will be immediately and consistently put into practice exactly as intended. The implementation of a policy is a complex, dynamic, and ongoing process involving a vast assortment of people, resources, organizational structures, and actions. No study that examined the implementation of school bullying policies found that the policies were being implemented precisely as intended (Hall & Chapman, 2016a , 2016b ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Holmgreen, 2014 ; Jordan, 2014 ; LaRocco, Nestler-Rusack, & Freiberg, 2007 ; MacLeod, 2007 ; Robbins, 2011 ; Schlenoff, 2014 ; Smith-Canty, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Indeed, the extent of faithful implementation in these studies varied considerably by location and policy component. Therefore, fidelity of implementation (i.e., the extent that a policy is put into practice as intended based on the directives expressed in the policy document) may mediate the relationship between policy adoption or presence and the targeted policy outcome of student bullying. However, none of the studies reviewed measured policy implementation fidelity. Thus, one can conclude from this evidence that in some cases, policy presence was associated with decreases in bullying; in other cases, however, there were no such associations. Because data on implementation were not collected in any study, it is not known if the lack of significant associations was related to lack of faithful implementation of policies.

One area of consistent agreement in the findings relates to the benefits for LGBTQ students who are in schools with anti-bullying policies that explicitly provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These benefits included lower rates of victimization and higher rates of intervention by educators. Numerous studies have demonstrated that LGBTQ youths experience high rates of bullying victimization (Berlan, Corliss, Field, Goodman, & Austin, 2010 ; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008 ; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw et al., 2008 ; Kosciw et al., 2010 ; Kosciw et al., 2012 ; Kosciw et al., 2014 ; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010 ; Varjas et al., 2008 ). However, only 20 states (40%) have enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in their anti-bullying laws (Human Rights Campaign, 2015 ). Given the evidence for the effectiveness of enumerated policies, all policies should prohibit harassment and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Aside from the LGBTQ-focused studies, only two other studies examined educators’ responsiveness to bullying. Findings from these studies were somewhat contradictory, as one found a connection between having a bullying policy and responding to a bullying incident, whereas the other study found no relationship between having a policy and educators’ comfort in responding to bullying. However, the study that found no relationship included several other relevant independent variables (i.e., receiving training on how to implement the school’s bullying policy and having resources available in the school to help educators intervene), which were significantly associated with increased comfort in responding to bullying (O’Brennan et al., 2014 ). Thus, the relationship between the presence of a school bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to bullying incidents may be mediated by training about putting the policy into practice and having resources available for intervention.

Finally, there was no evidence that one level of policy was more effective than another. Across the studies, school, district, and state policies all showed evidence for effectiveness as well as ineffectiveness. Policies do vary in terms of their weight in law. For example, a state statute has more legal force than an informal school policy established by a principal. Nonetheless, a school policy set by a principal is more proximal than a state policy, and therefore, the proximity may facilitate implementation of the policy at the school. Policy level may not be related to effectiveness. What likely matters more in terms of effectiveness are the strategies contained within a policy and the ways they are implemented.

What is the State of the Research on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

Systematic reviews summarize what is substantively known about a topic area and also provide a state of the research on a particular topic. Research to date on school bullying policy effectiveness has several strengths. In terms of designs, most studies have used a mixed-methods approach, which is advantageous because it capitalizes on the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative research and offsets weaknesses of using one or the other. Including quantitative methods allows for precise, numerical estimates related to distribution or the strength and direction of relationships, and including qualitative methods allows for rich, in-depth data related to context or complexity. Other strengths are related to sampling: More than one third of the studies used some form of probability sampling, over half of the studies used national samples, and many studies reported high response rates. These sampling strengths are beneficial in terms of generalizing findings. Also, almost all studies had sample sizes greater than 200, and two thirds of studies had large samples (i.e., approximately 500 to 8,500 participants). Larger samples can be more representative of a population and are beneficial in terms of statistical power. A final strength was that many studies collected data from multiple participants groups (e.g., teachers and students). Having multiple participant groups allows for a more comprehensive assessment and the triangulation of data sources, which can be used to compare and contrast findings and may help researchers corroborate findings.

On the other hand, several prominent methodological limitations were identified among the studies reviewed. First, the studies relied on evidence from cross-sectional surveys, which are vulnerable to selection bias and confounding. In addition, cross-sectional studies cannot examine a key criterion of causality: a temporal relationship wherein an anti-bullying policy was adopted and implemented, which then led to decreases in bullying over time. Second, most studies used convenience sampling. Although convenience sampling may be highly feasible and efficient, it can lead to the underrepresentation or overrepresentation of particular groups within a sample. Thus, convenience samples may not be representative of the populations of interest, which undermines the generalizations that can be made from the findings. Third, most of the studies used descriptive statistics or bivariate analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of bullying policies. Such analyses can be oversimplified and leave out relevant explanatory or contextualizing variables. In addition, some of the studies that used bivariate analyses did not report the exact statistical test used (e.g., independent groups t-test and chi-square test) or effect sizes and instead focused on substantive findings. Although these reports seemed to be aimed at a more general, nonscholarly audience, the omission of this information can become problematic in understanding the methods used and drawing conclusions about the results. Fourth, many studies asked participants to report whether their school had an anti-bullying policy. This question might be problematic for student respondents because they might not know about the policies in their schools.

A final limitation involved the measurement of bullying. The main goal of policy interventions for bullying is to prevent and reduce bullying behavior among students. Thus, studies evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions should measure bullying among students as a primary outcome. Nonetheless, only half of the studies directly measured student bullying, and most of these studies did not measure both bullying perpetration and victimization. Policies are aimed at influencing multiple actors involved in the bullying dynamic, which includes bullies, targets, victims, bully–victims, bystanders, parents, and school personnel. Thus, studies that do not measure bullying perpetration and victimization among students are not assessing the two main targeted behavioral outcomes of anti-bullying policies. In addition, bullying behaviors can manifest in many forms, including physical bullying, verbal bullying, social/relational bullying, cyberbullying, property bullying, and sexual bullying (Hall, 2016 ). However, none of the studies in this review measured all of the dimensions of bullying.

What Future Research is Needed on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

Undoubtedly, research on the effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying will continue to expand. In order to build upon and address gaps and limitations in the extant literature, six recommendations are presented for future research on school bullying policy effectiveness. These recommendations are based on the critical analysis of studies in this systematic review.

First, future studies should employ more rigorous designs to evaluate the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the “gold standard” approach for measuring the impact of an intervention; however, RCTs are often infeasible for evaluating public policy interventions due to the political and legal nature of policies, which are implemented across large organizational systems and typically with prescribed timelines (Oliver et al., 2010 ). Thus, researchers may need to rely on other rigorous and feasible designs for evaluating policy effectiveness: pretest/posttest cohort designs, pretest/posttest matched comparison group designs, and interrupted time series designs (Oliver et al., 2010 ; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 ). These study designs are superior to cross-sectional studies in determining the effectiveness of interventions (Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2003 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ; Pilcher & Bedford, 2011 ).

Second, studies should collect data on outcomes and the implementation of policy components. None of the studies assessed implementation fidelity. When bullying policies do not successfully achieve targeted outcomes, we do not know whether those policies were implemented as intended and failed or whether lack of implementation fidelity is to blame. Implementation data, if collected, could be used to ensure that policies are being activated as intended with high levels of fidelity and reported along with outcome evaluation data in the study designs mentioned previously. These data also could be used to examine the predictive relationship between implementation fidelity and outcomes. Theory would suggest an inverse relationship where higher levels of implementation fidelity are associated with lower levels of bullying among students; however, this remains an untested hypothesis. Also, bullying policies are comprised of an array of directives to be put into action. Data on the fidelity of implementation of all components of an anti-bullying policy would allow researchers to examine the relative or combined impact of policy components on outcomes.

Third, analyzing policy content—versus only considering the presence of absence of a bullying policy—is needed for more nuanced understanding of which policies work, for whom, and why. A national review of state anti-bullying laws showed broad inclusion of some policy components (e.g., outlining the consequences for students who bully) and limited inclusion of other components (e.g., providing mental health services to perpetrators or victims of bullying; Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ). Theoretically and empirically based guidance about specific actions that can be prescribed in bullying policies is small but growing (Cornell & Limber, 2015 ; Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, & Furlong, 2013 ). Future research should analyze the relationships between policy content and bullying outcomes, which could help identify the most influential policy components. Examining only policy presence or absence is insufficient because a school district may indeed have an anti-bullying policy, but its content may not be evidence-based. Policies can also vary in the way they are written, as some policies are lengthy, vague, and contradictory, whereas other policies are clear, concise, and specific. This area of content could also be analyzed and may relate to educators’ comprehension of policies, which would influence implementation actions by educators, and subsequently, policy outcomes.

Fourth, future studies should use multivariate and multilevel analyses. The effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying are influenced by several variables, including policy content, fidelity of implementation, and school environmental factors. By using more complex statistical methods (e.g., regression modeling, structural equation modeling, propensity score matching, and hierarchical linear modeling), researchers will be able to examine the influence of multiple variables, examine moderating and mediating relationships, control for extraneous variables, match intervention participants with control participants, and account for clustered data (e.g., students or teachers nested within schools). These statistical methods will be essential to execute the recommended study designs and analytic methods described previously. The use of these statistical methods will help ensure the integrity of future findings on policy effectiveness.

Fifth, studies should improve sampling practices. To attain more representative samples, researchers should partner with school districts, state departments of education, and departments of public instruction, and they should employ some form of probability sampling. Many of the studies in this review that used probability sampling involved data collection collaborations with state- and district-level educational agencies. Educational agencies have a vested interest in the implementation and success of bullying policies, especially those codified as law. In addition, future studies should sample from multiple respondent groups—such as administrators, teachers, school mental health professionals, and students—to gain a more comprehensive and multiperspective understanding of the implementation and effectiveness of school bullying policies. Researchers also should sample across the K–12 spectrum because state and district policy guidelines typically apply across these grade levels. Yet, there may be differences in policy effectiveness between elementary, middle, and high school. Certain policy strategies also may need to be tailored based on student developmental differences and differences in school structure across the K–12 system.

Finally, future studies should use scales to measure both bullying perpetration and victimization, and these measures should assess all of the dimensions of bullying: physical, verbal, social/relational, electronic, sexual, and property bullying. Researchers may find that policies are more effective at addressing certain types of bullying than others (e.g., direct vs. indirect bullying). Multifactor scales with a sufficient number of items are needed to measure the full range of bullying behaviors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created a compendium of bullying measures that is available to the public (see Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011 ). However, caution should be taken in selecting instruments because some measures have low internal consistency reliability values (i.e., α < .70), low test-retest reliability coefficients (i.e., r < .70), no recall time frames, overly long and complex definitions of bullying, limited evidence of construct validity, limited evidence of criterion validity, and limited evidence regarding respondents’ understanding of the measure’s instructions and items (Hall, 2016 ). In addition, as opposed to questionnaires about bullying behaviors, peer and/or teacher nomination methods to identify students who are bullying victims or perpetrators may be more developmentally appropriate for elementary school-age children.

Strengths and Limitations of the Review

This review used a rigorous approach to identify relevant studies by searching 11 databases using an expert-informed search string. In addition, search records were independently screened by two screeners based on a priori inclusion criteria. Further, research reports and dissertations (forms of gray literature) were included to minimize publication bias. Nonetheless, unpublished research may be underrepresented in this review. Another limitation relates to the variability of studies: Studies varied in the respondents, sample locations, the types of policies examined, and the ways effectiveness was evaluated. This variability presented challenges for combining and comparing results. Another limitation of this review relates to the methodological limitations of some of the included studies. However, by presenting the methodological characteristics and substantive findings by study in Table S1 , readers are able to assess the methodological rigor and trustworthiness of findings accordingly.

Bullying is a widespread problem in which about half of students are directly involved and up to 90% of students are indirectly involved (Atlas & Pepler, 1998 ; Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins et al., 2001 ). Policy interventions are an approach to bullying that establishes legal mandates for schools, influences the behavior of students and school personnel, and guides the implementation of other targeted interventions within schools. Findings on the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying are primarily mixed, and there are limitations in the evaluation methods used. Research on school bullying policy will undoubtedly continue to expand with the growing understanding of the need for evidence-based education policies and as bullying policies continue to be introduced and revised in schools across the globe. Future research must use more rigorous methods and designs and may indeed find that policy interventions play a key role as one of a constellation of intervention strategies for preventing and reducing school bullying.

I would like to thank Mimi Chapman, Natasha Bowen, Barbara Fedders, Mark Fraser, and Kathleen Rounds for their advice and feedback regarding this paper. I also thank Rachele McFarland for her research assistance. The author was supported by the National Research Service Award Postdoctoral Traineeship from the National Institute of Mental Health, sponsored by Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine (grant number T32 MH019117).

William Hall , PhD, MSW, is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to William James Hall, 325 Pittsboro Street, CB #3550, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550 or via e-mail to [email protected]

* Asterisks indicate studies that were included in the systematic review.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist , 63 , 852–862. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.63.9.852

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine , 40 , 717–729. doi: 10.1017/S0033291709991383

Arseneault, L., Walsh, E., Trzesniewski, K., Newcombe, R., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Bullying victimization uniquely contributes to adjustment problems in young children: A nationally representative cohort study. Pediatrics , 118 , 130–138. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005–2388

Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research , 92 , 86–99. doi: 10.1080/00220679809597580

Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2007). Effectiveness of programs to prevent school bullying. Victims and Offenders , 2 , 183–204. doi: 10.1080/15564880701263155

Barhight, L. R., Hubbard, J. A., & Hyde, C. T. (2013). Children’s physiological and emotional reactions to witnessing bullying predict bystander intervention. Child Development , 84 , 375–390. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01839.x

*Barnes, C. M. (2010). Bullying behavior: Perspectives on implementation of policy from building level administrators and school counselors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Memphis, Memphis, TN.

*Bauman, S., Rigby, K., & Hoppa, K. (2008). US teachers’ and school counsellors’ strategies for handling school bullying incidents. Educational Psychology , 28 , 837–856. doi: 10.1080/01443410802379085

Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., & Bryn Austin, S. (2010). Sexual orientation and bullying among adolescents in the growing up today study. Journal of Adolescent Health , 46 , 366–371. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.10.015

Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine. American Behavioral Scientist , 52 , 1405–1425. doi: 10.1177/0002764209332555

*Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L. M., & Gulemetova, M. (2013). Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspectives on bullying and prevention: Findings from a national education association study. School Psychology Review , 42 , 280–297.

Buhs, E. S., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Peer rejection as antecedent of young children’s school adjustment: An examination of mediating processes. Developmental Psychology , 37 , 550–560. doi: 10.1037/0012–1649.37.4.550

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology , 98 , 1–13. doi: 10.1037/0022–0663.98.1.1

Cassidy, W., Brown, K., & Jackson, M. (2012). ‘Under the radar’: Educators and cyberbullying in schools. School Psychology International , 33 , 520–532. doi: 10.1177/0143034312445245

Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user-friendly guide . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., & Kim, T. E. (2010). Variability in the prevalence of bullying and victimization: A cross-national and methodological analysis (pp. 347–362). In S. R. Jimerson, S. M. Swearer, & D. L. Espelage (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective . New York, NY: Routledge.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly , 25 (2), 65–83. doi: 10.1037/a0020149

Cornell, D., & Limber, S. P. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of bullying at school. American Psychologist , 70 , 333–343. doi: 10.1037/a0038558

Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (1995). Peer processes in bullying and victimization: An observational study. Exceptionality Education Canada, 5 , 81–96.

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., & Telljohann, S. K. (2003). The nature and extent of bullying at school. Journal of School Health , 73 , 173–180. doi: 10.1111/j.1746–1561.2003.tb03599.x

Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review , 37 , 202–216.

Evans, C. B., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 19 , 532–544. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004

*Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). Reducing school bullying: Evidence-based implications for policy. Crime and Justice , 38 , 281–345. doi: 10.1086/599198

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school-based anti-bullying programs: A meta-analytic review. Criminal Justice Review , 32 , 401–414. doi: 10.1177/0734016807311712

Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2009). Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics , 123 , 1059–1065. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008–1215

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, Version 1.0 . Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Education.

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine , 159 , 1026–1031. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026

Hall, W. J. (2016). Initial development and validation of the BullyHARM: The Bullying, Harassment, and Aggression Receipt Measure. Psychology in the Schools. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/pits.21957

Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2016a). Fidelity of implementation of a state anti-bullying policy with a focus on protected social classes. Journal of School Violence . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2016.1208571

Hall, W. J., & Chapman, M. V. (2016b). The role of school context in implementing a statewide anti-bullying policy and protecting students. Educational Policy . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0895904816637689

Hamburger, M. E., Basile, K. C., & Vivolo, A. M. (2011). Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration, and bystander experiences: A compendium of assessment tools . Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention.

Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D. J., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Social Development , 10 , 512–527. doi: 10.1111/1467–9507.00178

*Hedwall, J. (2006). Selected educators’ perceptions of the effectiveness and implementation of anti-bullying programs as required by legislation in Connecticut high schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Argosy University, Sarasota, FL.

Holmgreen, J. K. (2014). A descriptive study of the perceptions of superintendents of schools in the State of Texas regarding recent court decisions and the effectiveness of their own school board policy on student bullying behavior (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 17 , 311–322. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.03.003

Human Rights Campaign. (2015). Statewide school anti-bullying laws and policies . Washington, DC: Author.

*Isom, J. C. (2014). Understanding teacher perceptions of bullying and effectiveness of an anti-bullying policy: A case study of suburban high school teachers in the southwestern U.S. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA.

Jankauskiene, R., Kardelis, K., Sukys, S., & Kardeliene, L. (2008). Association between school bullying and psychosocial factors. Social Behavior and Personality , 36 , 145–162. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2008.36.2.145

Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of bystanders and victims to repetitive abuse experiences. Violence and Victims , 19 , 239–255.

Jordan, K. J. (2014). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of bullying and bullying policies in middle schools in three South Carolina school districts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC.

*Ju, A. (2012). Effectiveness of anti-bullying policies in high schools (Unpublished master’s thesis). Providence College, Providence, RI.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2000). Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology , 92 , 349–359. doi: 10.1037/0022–0663.92.2.349

Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. S. (2009). Bullying. In B. Kaiser & J. S. Rasminsky (Eds.), Challenging behavior in elementary and middle school (pp. 280–306). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

*Khoury-Kassabri, M. (2011). Student victimization by peers in elementary schools: Individual, teacher-class, and school-level predictors. Child Abuse & Neglect , 35 , 273–282. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.004

Kim, Y. S., & Leventhal, B. (2008). Bullying and suicide. A review. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health , 20 , 133–154. doi: 10.1515/IJAMH.2008.20.2.133

Klomek, A. B., Sourander, A., & Gould, M. (2010). The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 55 , 282–288.

*Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

*Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network.

*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J., (2014) . The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics , 33 , 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310

LaRocco, D. J., Nestler-Rusack, D., & Freiberg, J. A. (2007, October). Public school principals’ experiences with interpreting and implementing Connecticut’s anti-bullying law (Connecticut General Statute Section 10-222d): A statewide survey . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Northeast Educational Research Association, Rocky Hill, CT.

*Lee, C. (2007). An ecological prediction model of bullying behaviors among South Korean middle school students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Lee, S., Kim, C. J., & Kim, D. H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effect of school-based anti-bullying programs. Journal of Child Health Care , 19 , 136–153. doi: 10.1177/1367493513503581

Ma, L., Phelps, E., Lerner, J. V., & Lerner, R. M. (2009). The development of academic competence among adolescents who bully and who are bullied. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 30 , 628–644. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.006

MacLeod, I. R. (2007). A study of administrative policy responses to bullying in Illinois secondary schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL.

McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 39 , 1175–1188. doi: 10.1007/s10964–010–9540–7

McKinlay, J. B. (1998). Paradigmatic obstacles to improving the health of populations: Implications for health policy. Salud Pública de México , 40 , 369–379. doi: 10.1590/S0036-36341998000400010

Mead, J. F. (2009). The role of law in educational policy formation, implementation and research. In G. Sykes, D. Plank, & B. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research , (pp. 286–295). Washington, DC: Routledge.

Mishna, F., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2006). Factors associated with perceptions and responses to bullying situations by children, parents, teachers, and principals. Victims and Offenders , 1 , 255–288. doi: 10.1080/15564880600626163

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine , 151 , 264–269. doi: 10.7326/0003–4819–151–4–200908180–00135

Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A meta-analytic review. Social Development , 19 , 221–242. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9507.2009.00539.x

Nickerson, A. B., Cornell, D. G., Smith, J. D., & Furlong, M. J. (2013). School antibullying efforts: Advice for education policymakers. Journal of School Violence , 12 , 268–282. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2013.787366

O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining developmental differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools , 46 , 100–115. doi: 10.1002/pits.20357

*O’Brennan, L. M., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Strengthening bullying prevention through school staff connectedness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106 , 870–880. doi: 10.1037/a0035957

Oliver, S., Bagnall, A. M., Thomas, J., Shepherd, J., Sowden, A., White, I., … Oliver, K. (2010). Randomised controlled trials for policy interventions: A review of reviews and meta-regression. Health Technology Assessment Monographs , 14 , 1–165. doi: 10.3310/hta14160

Olweus, D. (2013). School bullying: Development and some important challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 9 , 751–780. doi: 10.1146/annurev–clinpsy–050212–185516

*Ordonez, M. A. (2006). Prevalence of bullying among elementary school children as a function of the comprehensiveness of anti-bullying policies and programs in the school (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ball State University, Muncie, IN.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2003). Evidence, hierarchies, and typologies: Horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , 57 , 527–529. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.7.527

*Phoenix, T. L., Hall, W. J., Weiss, M. M., Kemp, J. M., Wells, R. E., & Chan, A. W. (2006). Homophobic language and verbal harassment in North Carolina high schools . Chapel Hill, NC: Safe Schools NC.

Pilcher, J., & Bedford, L. A. (2011). Hierarchies of evidence in education. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing , 42 , 371–377. doi: 10.3928/00220124–20110401–03

Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., Boelen, P. A., Van der Schoot, M., & Telch, M. J. (2011). Prospective linkages between peer victimization and externalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis. Aggressive Behavior , 37 , 215–222. doi: 10.1002/ab.20374

Reijntjes, A., Kamphuis, J. H., Prinzie, P., & Telch, M. J. (2010). Peer victimization and internalizing problems in children: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Child Abuse & Neglect , 34 , 244–252. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.009

Robbins, R. (2011). Anti-bullying policies and practices in Texas middle schools (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton, TX.

*Samara, M., & Smith, P. K. (2008). How schools tackle bullying, and the use of whole school policies: Changes over the last decade. Educational Psychology , 28 , 663–676. doi: 10.1080/01443410802191910

Schlenoff, F. (2014). Perceptions of the school community as it implements New Jersey harassment, intimidation, and bullying legislation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). College of Saint Elizabeth, Morristown, NJ.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

*Sherer, Y. C., & Nickerson, A. B. (2010). Anti-bullying practices in American schools: Perspectives of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools , 47 , 217–229. doi: 10.1002/pits.20466

Smith-Canty, V. (2010). An analysis of the implementation of the South Carolina anti-bullying legislation in the middle schools involved in the Abbeville, South Carolina, school district lawsuit (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). South Carolina State University, Orangeburg, SC.

Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2013). Digest of education statistics 2012 . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Stauffer, S., Heath, M. A., Coyne, S. M., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology in the Schools , 49 , 353–367. doi: 10.1002/pits.21603

Stuart-Cassel, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J. F. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

*Terry, T. M. (2010). Blocking the bullies: Has South Carolina’s safe school climate act made public schools safer? The Clearing House , 83 , 96–100. doi: 10.1080/00098651003655902

Thomas, J., Harden, A., & Newman, M. (2012). Synthesis: Combining results systematically and appropriately. In D. Gough, S. Oliver, & J. Thomas (Eds.), An introduction to systematic reviews (pp. 179–226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ttofi, M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective longitudinal studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 17 , 405–418. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2012.05.002

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). Do victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research , 3 , 63–73. doi: 10.1108/17596591111132873

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health , 21 , 80–89. doi: 10.1002/cbm.808

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). Bullying policies and laws [Web page]. Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html#listing

Vandebosch, H., Poels, K., & Deboutte, G. (2014). Schools and cyberbullying: Problem perception, current actions and future needs. International Journal of Cyber Society and Education , 7 , 29–48. doi: 10.7903/ijcse.1149

van Noorden, T. H., Haselager, G. J., Cillessen, A. H., & Bukowski, W. M. (2015). Empathy and involvement in bullying in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 44 , 637–657. doi: 10.1007/s10964–014–0135–6

Varjas, K., Dew, B., Marshall, M., Graybill, E., Singh, A., Meyers, J., & Birckbichler, L. (2008). Bullying in schools towards sexual minority youth. Journal of School Violence , 7 , 59–86. doi: 10.1300/J202v07n02_05

*Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies inform us about the prevalence of direct and relational bullying behaviour in primary schools? Educational Psychology , 23 , 381–401. doi: 10.1080/01443410303215

Young, E. L., Nelson, D. A., Hottle, A. B., Warburton, B., & Young, B. K. (2013). Relational aggression in schools: Information for educators. Communique , 42 , 24–25.

Article DOI

Permissions Request permissions

Submitted March 30, 2016
Revised July 07, 2016
Accepted July 27, 2016
Published online January 26, 2017
effectiveness

Society for Social Work and Research member access. Log in to the Society for Social Work and Research website with your member credentials.

Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:

An official website of the United States government

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

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

Publications
Account settings

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

Advanced Search
Journal List
HHS Author Manuscripts

The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A Systematic Review

William hall.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Associated Data

Bullying threatens the mental and educational well-being of students. Although anti-bullying policies are prevalent, little is known about their effectiveness. This systematic review evaluates the methodological characteristics and summarizes substantive findings of studies examining the effectiveness of school bullying policies.

Searches of 11 bibliographic databases yielded 489 studies completed since January 1, 1995. Following duplicate removal and double-independent screening based on a priori inclusion criteria, 21 studies were included for review.

Substantially more educators perceive anti-bullying policies to be effective rather than ineffective. Whereas several studies show that the presence or quality of policies is associated with lower rates of bullying among students, other studies found no such associations between policy presence or quality and reductions in bullying. Consistent across studies, this review found that schools with anti-bullying policies that enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity were associated with better protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students. Specifically, LGBTQ students in schools with such policies reported less harassment and more frequent and effective intervention by school personnel. Findings are mixed regarding the relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to general bullying.

Conclusions

Anti-bullying policies might be effective at reducing bullying if their content is based on evidence and sound theory and if they are implemented with a high level of fidelity. More research is needed to improve on limitations among extant studies.

Bullying in schools is a pervasive threat to the well-being and educational success of students. Bullying refers to unwanted aggressive behaviors enacted intentionally over time by an individual or group using some form of power to cause physical and/or psychological harm to another individual or group in a shared social context ( Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014 ; Olweus, 2013 ). Bullying is also a widespread phenomenon. A meta-analysis of 82 studies conducted in 22 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Southern Africa, East Asia, and Australia and Oceania found that 53% of youth were involved in bullying as bullies, victims, or both bullies and victims ( Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ).

Involvement in bullying as perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders has been linked with deleterious outcomes by both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. Youths who are bullied can experience immediate negative effects that include physical injury, humiliation, sadness, rejection, and helplessness ( Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2009 ). Over time, a number of mental and behavioral health problems can emerge, including low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and behavior, conduct problems, psychosomatic problems, psychotic symptoms, and physical illness ( Arseneault, Bowes, & Shakoor, 2010 ; Dake, Price, & Telljohann, 2003 ; Gini & Pozzoli, 2009 ; Kim & Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek, Sourander, & Gould, 2010 ; Reijntjes et al., 2011 ; Reijntjes, Kamphuis, Prinzie, & Telch, 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011a ). In addition, students who have been bullied may not feel safe at school and may disengage from the school community due to fear and sadness, which may, in turn, contribute to higher rates of absenteeism and lower academic performance ( Arseneault et al., 2006 ; Buhs & Ladd, 2001 ; Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006 ; Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005 ; Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000 ; Nakamoto & Schwartz, 2010 ).

Youths who bully also face psychosocial difficulties. These youths often grow up in harsh social environments with few resources ( Hong & Espelage, 2012 ), and bullies often lack impulse control and empathy for others ( O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009 ; van Noorden, Haselager, Cillessen, & Bukowski, 2015 ). Students who bully are more likely to skip school, perform poorly, and drop out ( Jankauskiene, Kardelis, Sukys, & Kardeliene, 2008 ; Ma, Phelps, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009 ). Bullying perpetration also is associated with depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation and behavior, and violent and criminal behavior (e.g., assault, robbery, vandalism, carrying weapons, and rape; Dake et al., 2003 ; Kim& Leventhal, 2008 ; Klomek et al., 2010 ; Ttofi, Farrington, & Lösel, 2012 ; Ttofi, Farrington, Lösel, & Loeber, 2011b ). Compared to nonperpetrators, students who bully have an increased risk of violent and criminal behaviors into adulthood. A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies found that school bullies were 2.5 times more likely to engage in criminal offending over an 11-year follow-up period ( Ttofi et al., 2011b ).

Other youths involved in bullying include bully–victims and bystanders. Bully–victims are students who have been bullied but also engage in bullying others. Bully–victims can experience a combination of internalizing and externalizing problems ( Cook, Williams, Guerra, Kim, & Sadek, 2010 ). Student bystanders are present in up to 90% of bullying incidents ( Atlas & Pepler, 1998 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins, Pepler, & Craig, 2001 ). Youths who witness bullying often report emotional distress, including increased heart rate and higher levels of fear, sadness, and anger when recalling bullying incidents ( Barhight, Hubbard, & Hyde, 2013 ; Janson & Hazler, 2004 ). Thus, across the literature, bullying is associated with problematic outcomes for perpetrators, victims, bully–victims, and bystanders alike.

Policy as an Intervention for Bullying

Perspectives vary on how to best address bullying in schools. Intervention strategies have included suspending and expelling bullies, training teachers on intervening, teaching empathy and respect to students through classroom lessons, maintaining constant adult supervision throughout school settings, collaborating with parents about student behavior, and enacting school-wide policies about bullying. In the United States, policies addressing bullying emerged in 1999 following the Columbine High School shootings. These policies have spread due to increased awareness and concern about student violence and school safety ( Birkland & Lawrence, 2009 ). A policy is a system of principles created by governing bodies or public officials to achieve specific outcomes by guiding action and decision making. Policy is an umbrella term that refers to various regulatory measures, including laws, statutes, policies, regulations, and rules. These terms vary based on the jurisdiction and legal authority of the individual or group who established the policy. In the United States, K–12 education policy, which includes school bullying policy, can be established at the federal, state, and local levels ( Mead, 2009 ).

Another advantage of bullying policies is that they are upstream interventions that provide a foundation for downstream interventions. In other words, policies are systems-level interventions that typically require more targeted intervention programs, practices, and services at the organizational, group, and individual levels ( McKinlay, 1998 ). For example, a bullying policy may be adopted within a state or district; the policy then applies to all schools within the state or district. This policy may require training all school employees on bullying prevention strategies, integrating bullying awareness and education into classroom lessons and curricula, and providing counseling for students involved in bullying. Thus, policy lays the groundwork for an array of more specific and targeted interventions to be deployed in schools by outlining goals and directives in the policy document.

Policy design is important because the content influences a cascade of actions throughout school systems, which may result in positive or negative outcomes. For example, a bullying policy that requires schools to provide counseling services and positive behavioral reinforcement to students who perpetrate bullying is markedly different than a policy that requires schools to suspend or expel students who have carried out multiple acts of bullying. Research shows that overly harsh and punitive policies (e.g., “three strikes and you’re out” policies or “zero-tolerance” policies) are not effective at reducing aggression or improving school safety ( American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008 ). Thus, bullying policies should be crafted and revised using evidence-based strategies.

Anti-bullying laws have been enacted in a number of countries, including Canada, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Although the United States does not have a federal law against school bullying currently, all states have enacted anti-bullying laws ( U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015 ). The content of these laws was reviewed in a U.S. Department of Education report, which shows some consistency but also variability in the inclusion of policy components (see Table 1 ; Stuart-Cassel, Bell, & Springer, 2011 ). These state laws apply to approximately 98,000 K–12 public schools and have a goal of protecting more than 50 million students from involvement in bullying ( Snyder & Dillow, 2013 ; Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ).

Percentage of State Anti-Bullying Laws That Included Key Policy Components Identified by the U.S. Department of Education

Policy Component	%
Purpose of the policy	85
Applicability or scope of the policy	96
Prohibition of bullying behaviors	94
Enumeration of protected social classes or statuses	37
Requirement for districts to implement policies	98
Review of district policies by the state	43
Definition of bullying behaviors prohibited	63
Procedure for reporting bullying incidents	78
Procedure for investigating bullying incidents	67
Procedure for maintaining records of bullying incidents	39
Consequences for bullying perpetrators	91
Mental health services for victims and/or perpetrators	28
Communication of the policy to students, parents, and employees	91
Training for school personnel on bullying intervention and prevention	85
Data collection and monitoring bullying of incidents	39
Assurance of right to pursue legal remedies for victims	39

Note. The percentages are based on 46 state bullying laws passed between 1999 and 2011.

Source: Stuart-Cassel, Bell, & Springer, 2011 .

Despite the widespread adoption and application of anti-bullying policies within the United States and in other countries, relatively few studies have examined the effectiveness of these interventions. Instead, research has focused on programmatic interventions (e.g., Cool Kids Program, Fear Not!, Friendly Schools, KiVa, and Steps to Respect). Numerous systematic or meta-analytic reviews have been completed on the effectiveness of programmatic interventions for school bullying (e.g., Baldry & Farrington, 2007 ; Evans, Fraser, & Cotter, 2014 ; Ferguson, San Miguel, Kilburn, & Sanchez, 2007 ; Lee, Kim, & Kim, 2013 ; Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008 ; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011 ). However, a systematic review of the literature on the effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying has not been completed.

In preparation of this review, the author adhered to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria ( Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009 ). Before undertaking the search for relevant studies, the author developed protocols for bibliographic database searches, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a data extraction tool. In addition, this review was registered with PROSPERO, an international database of systematic reviews regarding health and social well-being.

Search Procedure

Inclusion Criteria

Study Screening

After performing the bibliographic database searches, 481 results were imported into the RefWorks program to assist with organization and duplicate removal. Following duplicate removal, 414 studies remained. An additional 8 studies were added from Google Scholar searches that were not present among the 414 studies. The author and a trained research assistant independently screened each of the 422 studies to determine eligibility. A checklist of the inclusion criteria was created prior to the search and was used for eligibility assessment. Studies had to meet all three inclusion criteria to be screened in. Most studies were included or excluded after reading the title and abstract; however, it was also necessary to examine the full source document of some studies to determine eligibility. To examine interrater agreement, the decisions of the two screeners were compared, and Cohen’s kappa was calculated with SPSS (Version 21), which showed excellent agreement: kappa=0.97, p < .05 ( Landis & Koch, 1977 ). There were only six disagreements between the screeners, which were resolved by the author examining the source documents. After screening, 401 studies were excluded because they did not meet all of the inclusion criteria. The most common reasons for exclusion included papers that were not empirical, lack of evaluation of effectiveness, lack of evaluation of policy, and studies that were not conducted in schools. After completing the search and screening processes, 21 studies were included for extraction and review ( Figure 1 ).

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms849106f1.jpg

Flow diagram depicting the identification, screening, and inclusion of studies.

Data Extraction

Data Synthesis

Initial review of the included studies revealed that a quantitative synthesis, such as a meta-analysis, was not advisable due to the methodological heterogeneity of the studies and differences in approaches to evaluating policy effectiveness. Thus, a narrative thematic synthesis approach was used ( Thomas, Harden, & Newman, 2012 ). The substantive findings on policy effectiveness were first categorized based on the outcome evaluated and then synthesized within each category.

Methodological Characteristics of the Studies

Evaluation methods

The measures used to assess bullying among students varied; some studies used established scales (e.g., Olweus Bullying Questionnaire), whereas other studies used items developed by the researchers. The number of items used to measure bullying varied from 3 to 23 ( M =18.2, SD =6.1). Of the 11 studies that measured bullying, the majority measured bullying victimization ( n = 8). Only 2 studies measured both bullying victimization and perpetration, and one study measured just perpetration. In terms of the types of bullying measured, 5 studies measured physical, verbal, social, electronic, and sexual bullying; 3 studies measured physical, verbal, and social bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and electronic bullying; one study measured physical, verbal, social, and property bullying; and one study measured verbal bullying. In addition to student bullying, educators’ responsiveness to bullying was another outcome variable that was used in 8 studies. Only one study used a scale to measure educator responsiveness, and the remaining 7 studies used one to four items regarding educators responding to student bullying.

Results on Policy Effectiveness

Perceptions of policy effectiveness

Eight studies reported results on participants’ perceptions of policy effectiveness. Results showed that 5% to 88%( M =49.4%, SD = 33.4%) of educators perceived school bullying policies to be effective to some degree, 4% to 79% ( M =24.5%, SD =23.6%) of educators perceived policies to be ineffective , and 16% to 70% ( M =51.3%, SD =30.6%) of educators were uncertain about policy effectiveness ( Barnes, 2010 ; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova, 2013 ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Isom, 2014 ; Sherer & Nickerson, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Only one study measured students’ perceptions of policy effectiveness, and results showed that they perceived policies to be moderately effective ( Ju, 2012 ). In addition, only one of the 21 studies collected multiple waves of data, although different sets of respondents were used at each of the two waves ( Samara & Smith, 2008 ). In this study, researchers examined perceived effectiveness before and after the passage of an anti-bullying policy; however, there were no significant changes in perceived effectiveness.

Student bullying perpetration and victimization

Five studies reported findings on the influence of policy on general student bullying outcomes. Two of these 5 studies examined policy content in relation to effectiveness. One study found that students in schools with high-quality bullying policies reported lower rates of verbal and physical bullying victimization than students in schools with low-quality policies; however, no differences were found for social/relational or property bullying victimization ( Ordonez, 2006 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; procedures and consequences for bullies; plans for disseminating the policy to students, school personnel, and parents; programs or practices that encourage acceptance of diversity, empathy for others, respect toward others, peer integration, and responsible use of power; supervision of students in school areas prone to bullying (e.g., playground, cafeteria, and hallways); and socio-emotional skills training for victims and bullies ( Ordonez, 2006 ). Similarly, another study found lower rates of verbal, physical, and property bullying victimization among students in schools with high-quality bullying policies, yet higher rates of social/relational bullying perpetration ( Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). In this study, policy quality was evaluated based on the inclusion of the following elements: a definition of bullying; recognition of negative outcomes associated with bullying; discussion of locations where bullying can occur; evaluation of the prevalence of bullying; involvement of stakeholders in policy development; supervision of students in school areas; formulation of a school task group to coordinate anti-bullying efforts; classroom rules about bullying; classroom sessions about bullying; discussion of bullying at PTA/PTO meetings; involvement of parents in bullying prevention efforts; and follow-up with victims and bullies after incidents ( Woods & Wolke, 2003 ).

Other studies examined associations between policy presence and bullying outcomes. Three significant or marginally significant ( p ≤ .095) associations were found: the presence of an anti-bullying policy was inversely related to general bullying victimization, social/relational bullying perpetration, and verbal bullying perpetration ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Lee, 2007 ). Conversely, eight nonsignificant associations were found between school bullying policy presence and scores of general, physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying perpetration, as well as physical, verbal, and social/relational bullying victimization ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Khoury-Kassabri, 2011 ; Lee, 2007 ). In addition, having a bullying policy was not associated with increases in general bullying perpetration or victimization ( Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ).

Anti-LGBTQ bullying

Six studies with rather large samples of primarily LGBTQ students consistently found that compared to students in schools without an anti-bullying policy or with an anti-bullying policy that did not explicitly prohibit bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity, students in schools with comprehensive anti-bullying policies that included protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of anti-LGBTQ bullying, more school personnel frequently intervening when anti-LGBTQ comments were made in their presence, and more school personnel being effective in their anti-LGBTQ bullying responses ( Kosciw&Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw, Diaz,&Greytak, 2008 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012 ; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014 ; Phoenix et al., 2006 ). These differences were consistent in analyses of both local anti-bullying policies and state anti-bullying laws.

Educator intervention in bullying

Educators play a key role in reducing bullying behavior among students. One study found that compared to those in schools without a bullying policy, educators in schools with bullying policies were more likely to enlist the help of parents and colleagues in responding to a bullying incident and were less likely to ignore bullying ( Bauman, Rigby, & Hoppa, 2008 ). Conversely, a large, national study of educators found no relationship between having an anti-bullying policy and educators’ comfort intervening in both general and discriminatory bullying ( O’Brennan, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2014 ).

The findings are discussed according to the research questions that drove the review.

Are Policies Effective at Reducing Bullying?

Educators were divided in their perceptions of the effectiveness of policies for school bullying; however, on average, about twice as many educators reported that policies were effective to some degree as those who reported that they were not effective. Nonetheless, descriptive summaries of perceptions of effectiveness are typically not viewed as compelling sources of evidence for the effectiveness of an intervention ( Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ). However, educators are considered key informants who know what goes on in schools.

Two studies found lower rates of verbal and physical bullying in schools with high- rather than low-quality policies; however, in terms of social/relational bullying, one study found no difference, and another study found higher rates of social/relational bullying in schools with high-quality policies ( Ordonez, 2006 ; Woods & Wolke, 2003 ). This tentative finding suggests that improving the quality of bullying policies may be effective for direct and overt forms of bullying (e.g., hitting and name-calling) but may not effect social/relational bullying. Across the two studies, elements of policy quality associated with decreases in verbal and physical bullying included a comprehensive definition of bullying; school and classroom rules and procedures about bullying; plans for communicating the policy within the school community; supervision of students across school areas; involvement of parents in anti-bullying efforts; involvement of multiple stakeholders in school-wide anti-bullying actions; and working with and educating students around social, emotional, and behavioral issues to prevent bullying. Extant policies may overemphasize traditional notions of what bullying is (i.e., physical and verbal harassment) and underemphasize or neglect to address more recent understandings of social/relational aggression as bullying. In addition, direct and overt forms of bullying may be more amenable to policy interventions because educators can directly observe these behaviors and then proceed with their response, whereas social/relational bullying often occurs away from the direct supervision of educators ( Young, Nelson, Hottle, Warburton, & Young, 2013 ). Educators have reported difficulty in responding to bullying incidents that they did not witness ( Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2006 ). Similarly, although many educators are aware of cyberbullying, few take steps to address it and many are uncertain about how to confront cyberbullying, which often occurs outside of school ( Cassidy, Brown, & Jackson, 2012 ; Stauffer, Heath, Coyne, & Ferrin, 2012 ; Vandebosch, Poels, & Deboutte, 2014 ). Nonetheless, educators can address cyberbullying occurring on or off school grounds if the aggression creates a hostile school environment and substantially disrupts a student’s learning environment ( Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ).

Findings among the few studies that examined associations between policy presence and student bullying were mixed, although more nonsignificant than significant associations were found. At first glance, one may conclude from these findings that the presence of bullying policies does not influence bullying among students; however, the presence of a policy is necessary but is not sufficient to affect student behavior. Indeed, after a policy has been adopted, it must be put into practice. The mere adoption or presence of a policy does not mean that it will be immediately and consistently put into practice exactly as intended. The implementation of a policy is a complex, dynamic, and ongoing process involving a vast assortment of people, resources, organizational structures, and actions. No study that examined the implementation of school bullying policies found that the policies were being implemented precisely as intended ( Hall & Chapman, 2016a , 2016b ; Hedwall, 2006 ; Holmgreen, 2014 ; Jordan, 2014 ; LaRocco, Nestler-Rusack, & Freiberg, 2007 ; MacLeod, 2007 ; Robbins, 2011 ; Schlenoff, 2014 ; Smith-Canty, 2010 ; Terry, 2010 ). Indeed, the extent of faithful implementation in these studies varied considerably by location and policy component. Therefore, fidelity of implementation (i.e., the extent that a policy is put into practice as intended based on the directives expressed in the policy document) may mediate the relationship between policy adoption or presence and the targeted policy outcome of student bullying. However, none of the studies reviewed measured policy implementation fidelity. Thus, one can conclude from this evidence that in some cases, policy presence was associated with decreases in bullying; in other cases, however, there were no such associations. Because data on implementation were not collected in any study, it is not known if the lack of significant associations was related to lack of faithful implementation of policies.

One area of consistent agreement in the findings relates to the benefits for LGBTQ students who are in schools with anti-bullying policies that explicitly provide protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity. These benefits included lower rates of victimization and higher rates of intervention by educators. Numerous studies have demonstrated that LGBTQ youths experience high rates of bullying victimization ( Berlan, Corliss, Field, Goodman, & Austin, 2010 ; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008 ; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006 ; Kosciw et al., 2008 ; Kosciw et al., 2010 ; Kosciw et al., 2012 ; Kosciw et al., 2014 ; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010 ; Varjas et al., 2008 ). However, only 20 states (40%) have enumerated protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in their anti-bullying laws ( Human Rights Campaign, 2015 ). Given the evidence for the effectiveness of enumerated policies, all policies should prohibit harassment and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Aside from the LGBTQ-focused studies, only two other studies examined educators’ responsiveness to bullying. Findings from these studies were somewhat contradictory, as one found a connection between having a bullying policy and responding to a bullying incident, whereas the other study found no relationship between having a policy and educators’ comfort in responding to bullying. However, the study that found no relationship included several other relevant independent variables (i.e., receiving training on how to implement the school’s bullying policy and having resources available in the school to help educators intervene), which were significantly associated with increased comfort in responding to bullying ( O’Brennan et al., 2014 ). Thus, the relationship between the presence of a school bullying policy and educators’ responsiveness to bullying incidents may be mediated by training about putting the policy into practice and having resources available for intervention.

What is the State of the Research on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

On the other hand, several prominent methodological limitations were identified among the studies reviewed. First, the studies relied on evidence from cross-sectional surveys, which are vulnerable to selection bias and confounding. In addition, cross-sectional studies cannot examine a key criterion of causality: a temporal relationship wherein an anti-bullying policy was adopted and implemented, which then led to decreases in bullying over time. Second, most studies used convenience sampling. Although convenience sampling may be highly feasible and efficient, it can lead to the under representation or overrepresentation of particular groups within a sample. Thus, convenience samples may not be representative of the populations of interest, which undermines the generalizations that can be made from the findings. Third, most of the studies used descriptive statistics or bivariate analyses to evaluate the effectiveness of bullying policies. Such analyses can be oversimplified and leave out relevant explanatory or contextualizing variables. In addition, some of the studies that used bivariate analyses did not report the exact statistical test used (e.g., independent groups t-test and chi-square test) or effect sizes and instead focused on substantive findings. Although these reports seemed to be aimed at a more general, nonscholarly audience, the omission of this information can become problematic in understanding the methods used and drawing conclusions about the results. Fourth, many studies asked participants to report whether their school had an anti-bullying policy. This question might be problematic for student respondents because they might not know about the policies in their schools.

A final limitation involved the measurement of bullying. The main goal of policy interventions for bullying is to prevent and reduce bullying behavior among students. Thus, studies evaluating the effectiveness of these interventions should measure bullying among students as a primary outcome. Nonetheless, only half of the studies directly measured student bullying, and most of these studies did not measure both bullying perpetration and victimization. Policies are aimed at influencing multiple actors involved in the bullying dynamic, which includes bullies, targets, victims, bully–victims, bystanders, parents, and school personnel. Thus, studies that do not measure bullying perpetration and victimization among students are not assessing the two main targeted behavioral outcomes of anti-bullying policies. In addition, bullying behaviors can manifest in many forms, including physical bullying, verbal bullying, social/relational bullying, cyberbullying, property bullying, and sexual bullying ( Hall, 2016 ). However, none of the studies in this review measured all of the dimensions of bullying.

What Future Research is Needed on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

First, future studies should employ more rigorous designs to evaluate the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the “gold standard” approach for measuring the impact of an intervention; however, RCTs are often infeasible for evaluating public policy interventions due to the political and legal nature of policies, which are implemented across large organizational systems and typically with prescribed timelines ( Oliver et al., 2010 ). Thus, researchers may need to rely on other rigorous and feasible designs for evaluating policy effectiveness: pretest/posttest cohort designs, pretest/posttest matched comparison group designs, and interrupted time series designs ( Oliver et al., 2010 ; Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002 ). These study designs are superior to cross-sectional studies in determining the effectiveness of interventions ( Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, 2003 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2003 ; Pilcher & Bedford, 2011 ).

Third, analyzing policy content—versus only considering the presence of absence of a bullying policy—is needed for more nuanced understanding of which policies work, for whom, and why. A national review of state anti-bullying laws showed broad inclusion of some policy components (e.g., outlining the consequences for students who bully) and limited inclusion of other components (e.g., providing mental health services to perpetrators or victims of bullying; Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011 ). Theoretically and empirically based guidance about specific actions that can be prescribed in bullying policies is small but growing ( Cornell & Limber, 2015 ; Nickerson, Cornell, Smith, & Furlong, 2013 ). Future research should analyze the relationships between policy content and bullying outcomes, which could help identify the most influential policy components. Examining only policy presence or absence is insufficient because a school district may indeed have an anti-bullying policy, but its content may not be evidence-based. Policies can also vary in the way they are written, as some policies are lengthy, vague, and contradictory, whereas other policies are clear, concise, and specific. This area of content could also be analyzed and may relate to educators’ comprehension of policies, which would influence implementation actions by educators, and subsequently, policy outcomes.

Finally, future studies should use scales to measure both bullying perpetration and victimization, and these measures should assess all of the dimensions of bullying: physical, verbal, social/relational, electronic, sexual, and property bullying. Researchers may find that policies are more effective at addressing certain types of bullying than others (e.g., direct vs. indirect bullying). Multifactor scales with a sufficient number of items are needed to measure the full range of bullying behaviors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention created a compendium of bullying measures that is available to the public (see Hamburger, Basile, & Vivolo, 2011 ). However, caution should be taken in selecting instruments because some measures have low internal consistency reliability values (i.e., α < .70), low test-retest reliability coefficients (i.e., r < .70), no recall time frames, overly long and complex definitions of bullying, limited evidence of construct validity, limited evidence of criterion validity, and limited evidence regarding respondents’ understanding of the measure’s instructions and items ( Hall, 2016 ). In addition, as opposed to questionnaires about bullying behaviors, peer and/or teacher nomination methods to identify students who are bullying victims or perpetrators may be more developmentally appropriate for elementary school-age children.

Strengths and Limitations of the Review

This review used a rigorous approach to identify relevant studies by searching 11 databases using an expert-informed search string. In addition, search records were independently screened by two screeners based on a priori inclusion criteria. Further, research reports and dissertations (forms of gray literature) were included to minimize publication bias. Nonetheless, unpublished research may be underrepresented in this review. Another limitation relates to the variability of studies: Studies varied in the respondents, sample locations, the types of policies examined, and the ways effectiveness was evaluated. This variability presented challenges for combining and comparing results. Another limitation of this review relates to the methodological limitations of some of the included studies. However, by presenting the methodological characteristics and substantive findings by study in Table S1 (available online), readers are able to assess the methodological rigor and trustworthiness of findings accordingly.

Bullying is a widespread problem in which about half of students are directly involved and up to 90% of students are indirectly involved ( Atlas &Pepler, 1998 ; Cook, Williams, Guerra, & Kim, 2010 ; Craig & Pepler, 1995 ; Glew et al., 2005 ; Hawkins et al., 2001 ). Policy interventions are an approach to bullying that establishes legal mandates for schools, influences the behavior of students and school personnel, and guides the implementation of other targeted interventions within schools. Findings on the effectiveness of policy interventions for bullying are primarily mixed, and there are limitations in the evaluation methods used. Research on school bullying policy will undoubtedly continue to expand with the growing understanding of the need for evidence-based education policies and as bullying policies continue to be introduced and revised in schools across the globe. Future research must use more rigorous methods and designs and may indeed find that policy interventions play a key role as one of a constellation of intervention strategies for preventing and reducing school bullying.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

* Asterisks indicate studies that were included in the systematic review.

Bullying: What We Know Based On 40 Years of Research

APA journal examines science aimed at understanding causes, prevention

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

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

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

Articles in the issue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Sliwa (202) 336-5707

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

39k 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

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

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 of School Bullying 1 Literature Review of Bullying at Schools

Related Papers

British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

Bakshi Anuradha

Bullying in Schools

Peter Smith

Jo Dominado

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.

Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics

Camilla Forsberg

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.

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.

Shelley Hymel

This article discusses school bullying, which sometimes occurs among schoolchildren, aiming to raise pupils’, teachers’, administrators’, and parents’ awareness of the problem. Within this framework, the definition, characteristics, frequency and types of school bullying, relation of bullying to sex and age, the negative effects of bullying on pupils, characteristics of bullies, victims, and bully/victims, the risk places at schools and the response of school staff to bullying are all examined. Finally, strategies to prevent bullying problems at schools are suggested. This work is based on a review of theliterature and because of the limited number of publications on the subject in Turkish, mostly work written in English is referred to.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială

Oyaziwo Aluede

Aggressive Behavior

Cecilia L . Calub

Jesus A Garcia

arjun bantugan

Journal of Pedagogy - Revista de Pedagogie

Ioana Stăncescu

Psychology, Health & Medicine

ERSILIA MENESINI

Maureen Kenny

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research

Handbook of Bullying in Schools

Leihua Edstrom

Fatime Ziberi

International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on the Dialogue between Sciences & Arts, Religion & Education

Journal of Behavioral …

Tary J Tobin , Jeffrey Sprague , Shanna Hagan Burke

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

christina salmivalli

Jimelle Dacanay

Marlon Tarraz

John Kibuutu

Journal of Education and Practice

Educational Researcher

Susan Swearer

Makarena Saavedra

vicky geary

Pauline Hyland , Conor Guckin

Model Programs Guide Literature Review: Bullying and Cyberbullying

Based on a literature review, this web resource first distinguishes bullying from other types of aggression or violence and then presents sections on the following bullying-related topics: 1) scope of the problem; 2) theoretical foundation; 3) risk and protective factors; 4) consequences of bullying; 5) moderators and interactive protective factors; 6) bystanders; and outcome evidence for anti-bullying programs.

Bullying involving children and youth has become a topic of national conversation over the past few decades and is a major focus for schools across the United States and internationally (Gladden et al., 2014; Ybarra et al., 2019). Bullying can cause substantial harm to the children and youth who are victimized, to those who engage in bullying behaviors, and to the bystanders who witness bullying (Evans et al., 2018; Gladden et al., 2014; Zych, Farrington, and Ttofi, 2019). To address this problem, numerous antibullying interventions have been developed and implemented (Gaffney, Ttofi, and Farrington, 2019; Polanin et al., 2021). Along with these efforts, there has been a growing field of research on bullying, which strives to understand the causes, effects, and ways of effectively intervening and preventing bullying (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). While multiple definitions of bullying are used in research (Eriksen, 2018; Gladden et al., 2014; Liu and Graves, 2011; Smith et al., 2002; Polanin, 2012; Younan, 2018), bullying is generally considered to be unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youth (who are not current dating partners or siblings) that involves a power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated (Gladden et al., 2014). Although attention to bullying has increased noticeably among researchers since the late 1990s, and many studies have been published, bullying research is still considered "underdeveloped and uneven" (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016, p. 31). This literature review focuses on bullying that involves children and youth in elementary, middle, and high schools. The review summarizes research related to the scope of bullying in the United States; different types of bullying; theoretical foundations; predictors, risk factors, protective factors, and consequences of bullying; and interventions focused on prevention and/or reduction. Challenges and gaps in the literature are also identified.

Additional Details

COMMENTS

A systematic literature review on the effects of bullying at school
Abstract. Bullying is a severe problem that is experienced, especially in schools. Children belong to the same social group, but some feel powerful than others and therefore take advantage of them ...
PDF Literature Review
During the 2021-22 school year, 28% of middle schools, 15% of high schools and 10% of elementary schools reported bullying incidents at school at least once a week. Cyberbullying at least once a week was reported by 37% of middle schools, 25% of high schools and 6% of elementary schools (Burr, Kemp & Wang, 2024).
Full article: Understanding bullying from young people's perspectives
Introduction. With its negative consequences for wellbeing, bullying is a major public health concern affecting the lives of many children and adolescents (Holt et al. 2014; Liu et al. 2014). Bullying can take many different forms and include aggressive behaviours that are physical, verbal or psychological in nature (Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel ...
Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions
Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective ...
Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review
Schools*. Social Skills*. 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 u ….
A Review of the Literature on Bullying in U.S. Schools and How a Parent
This article is a review of the literature focusing on the laws (state and federal) pertaining to bullying and the long-term effects of being a bully. In addition, the article provides an overview of the five different types of bullying: (a) physical bullying, (b) verbal bullying, (c) bullying through relational aggression, (d) bullying through ...
Bullying in children: impact on child health
Bullying in children: impact on child health - PMC
Adverse Childhood Experiences and Bullying During Adolescence: A
First, the findings might be an underestimate of the literature on ACEs and bullying. The review coverage years were 1999-2019. This systematic review is part of a larger search that extracted data from 140 articles and took several years to complete. However, studies have yet to review the associations of the 11 singular ACEs (10 as defined ...
Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review
More recently, a systematic literature review by Luiz da Silva et al. (2017) found that the most effective anti-bullying programs were delivered as a multi-component or schoolwide approach through ...
A Review of Behavior-Based Interventions that Address Bullying
The purpose of this literature review is to examine the research base of interventions focused on reducing bullying, aggressive, or inappropriate behavior in recess settings through behavioral-based interventions. This review extends the literature by synthesizing findings from experimental, quasi-experimental, and single-case research on the characteristics and components of effective ...
Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a
A repeated cross-sectional study of 32,722 students aged 15-18 years found that bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems, especially among boys. The study also examined trends, socio-economic factors, and school-related factors that may influence the relationship between bullying and mental health.
The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A
The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying
The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A
Bullying in schools is a pervasive threat to the well-being and educational success of students. Bullying refers to unwanted aggressive behaviors enacted intentionally over time by an individual or group using some form of power to cause physical and/or psychological harm to another individual or group in a shared social context (Gladden, Vivolo-Kantor, Hamburger, & Lumpkin, 2014; Olweus, 2013).
A systematic review and empirical investigation: bullying victimisation
A second gap in the literature has emerged as despite increased awareness that some types of bullying are more detrimental than others (Ferraz de Camargo & Rice, Citation 2020; Siegel et al., Citation 2009), bullying typically continues to be defined as a single construct (Moore et al., Citation 2017). This has resulted in a lack of detailed ...
A systematic literature review on the effects of bullying at school
Keywords: Bullying, literature review, school, Malaysia Article History: Received on 4/1/2021; Revised on 1/1/2021; Accepted on 19/02/2021; Published Online: 20/02/2021. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium ...
Upwards Workplace Bullying: A Literature Review
This article tracks the history, research, and literature of upwards bullying in the workplace, where employees use calculated tactics against the directors, managers, supervisors, and leaders to whom the subordinates are accountable. While there is a huge body of literature on all aspects of workplace bullying, finding relevant publications on ...
PDF Literature Review
A key facet of addressing bullying and harassment at the school level is combatting harassment that occurs due to facets of a student's identity: race, religion, sex, gender, sexuality, size, ability and national origin. Every student should feel welcome at school, regardless of how they look, identify, or worship.
Bullying: What We Know Based On 40 Years of Research
A special issue of American Psychologist® provides a comprehensive review of over 40 years of research on bullying among school age youth, documenting the current understanding of the complexity of the issue and suggesting directions for future research. The articles cover topics such as the long-term effects of bullying, the developmental antecedents and outcomes, the legal and policy ...
Risk factors of school bullying and its relationship with psychiatric
Risk factors of school bullying and its relationship with ...
(PDF) Literature Review of School Bullying 1 Literature Review of
Literature Review of School Bullying 11 If the bullying behaviours are not intervened then some of these children could continue into a life of violence and potentially crime. Ross shows in a longitudinal study by Eron & Huessman, that children who bullied at age 8 had a 1:4 chance of having a criminal record by age 30.
PDF Literature Review on Bullying
support, or even promote, bullying (Cohn and Canter, 2003; Shellard, 2002). Most bullying behavior develops in response to multiple factors at home, school, and within the peer group. The frequency and severity of bullying is related to a lack of adult supervision received by a child in the home. Studies indicate that bullies often come from
Model Programs Guide Literature Review: Bullying and Cyberbullying
This web resource summarizes research on the scope, causes, effects, and interventions of bullying and cyberbullying among children and youth in schools. It covers topics such as definitions, theoretical foundations, risk and protective factors, bystanders, and outcome evidence for anti-bullying programs.

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

Other Literature Sources

Anti-bullying interventions in schools: a systematic literature review

Abstract and Figures

A Review of Behavior-Based Interventions that Address Bullying, Aggressive, and Inappropriate Student Behavior during Recess

Cite this article

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Bullying: A School Mental Health Perspective

What Works for Whom in School-Based Anti-bullying Interventions? An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

Author information

Corresponding author

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

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

Conclusions

Introduction

Participants

Study outcome

Primary exposure

Statistical analyses

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Strengths and limitations

Availability of data and materials

Code availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Additional information

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A Systematic Review

Negative Outcomes Connected with Bullying

Policy as an Intervention for Bullying

Purpose of the Current Review

Search Procedure

Inclusion Criteria

Study Screening

Data Extraction

Data Synthesis

Methodological Characteristics of the Studies

Evaluation methods

Results on Policy Effectiveness

Perceptions of policy effectiveness

Student bullying perpetration and victimization

Anti-LGBTQ bullying

Educator intervention in bullying

Are Policies Effective at Reducing Bullying?

What is the State of the Research on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

What Future Research is Needed on School Bullying Policy Effectiveness?

Strengths and Limitations of the Review

Article DOI

The Effectiveness of Policy Interventions for School Bullying: A Systematic Review

Associated Data

Conclusions

Policy as an Intervention for Bullying

Search Procedure

Inclusion Criteria

Study Screening

Data Extraction

Data Synthesis

Methodological Characteristics of the Studies

Evaluation methods

Results on Policy Effectiveness

Perceptions of policy effectiveness

Student bullying perpetration and victimization