The Problem
Bullying has previously been accepted as normal child and adolescent behavior, frequently dismissed with the notion that “kids will be kids.” However, in the last decade, bullying has become an increasingly critical national issue as research has revealed that this form of youth violence interferes with student learning and creates a culture of fear and disrespect. Bullying has detrimental short- and long-term academic, mental and physical health effects on both the bully and the victim. Additionally, it can have a profoundly negative impact on bystanders and on families (Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003; TA Center, 2004).
Bullying Defined
Bullying is most commonly characterized by the following three criteria:
- Aggressive behavior or intentional harmdoing. This includes physical (i.e., punching, strangling, hair pulling, beating), verbal (i.e., name-calling, teasing, gossiping), emotional/relational (i.e., rejecting, excluding, humiliating, blackmailing, peer pressure), and sexual aggression (i.e., exhibitionism, sexual propositioning, sexual harassment).
- It is carried out repeatedly and over time;
- It occurs within an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of physical or psychological power (Blueprints, 2004; Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003; TA Center, 2004).
The Facts about Bullying
- Bullying is the most common form of violence. 3.7 million youth engage in it, and more than 3.2 million are victims of bullying each year.
- 1.2 million youth are both victims of bullies as well as bullies themselves.
Since 1992, there have been 250 violent deaths in schools, and bullying has been a factor in almost every school shooting.
- Direct physical bullying increases in elementary school, peaks in middle school, and declines in high school. Verbal abuse remains constant across the primary through secondary school years.
Source: Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003
Who is Involved in Bullying?
Bullying tends to involve three groups: bullies, victims, and bystanders.
Bullies: Bullies are likely to be impulsive, hotheaded, easily frustrated, have dominant personalities, have difficulty conforming to rules, and view violence in a positive light (AMA, 2002; Olweus, 1993; Stevens et al., 2003). Bullies tend not to be socially isolated and they have average or above average self-esteem.
Research has revealed several negative long-term effects for bullies:
- Antisocial or delinquent behaviors such as vandalism, shoplifting, truancy, and frequent drug use
- Antisocial behavior pattern that continues into young adulthood
- Greater likelihood to drink, smoke, and perform poorly in school than non-bullies (Stevens et. al, 2002; AMA, 2002)
Victims: Victims of bullying tend to be vulnerable (Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003). Passive victims, the most commonly bullied group, tend to be cautious, insecure, sensitive, feel socially isolated and lonely, and have difficulty asserting themselves among peers.
Research has revealed negative effects of bullying on the victim, such as:
- Short-term depression, anxiety, loneliness, post-traumatic stress symptoms, and difficulties with school work
- Low self-esteem and long-term depression (AMA, 2002; TA Center, 2004; Storch & Esposito, 2003)
Bully-Victims: Bully-victims (also referred to as provocative victims) are children who are both bullies and recipients of bullying. They possess many of the social-emotional problems of passive victims, such as social isolation and insecurity, but they also display behavioral problems of bullies, such as being quick-tempered, aggressive, and retaliatory. These children tend to do poorly in school and to engage in problem behaviors, such as smoking and drinking (AMA, 2002; Nansel et. al, 2001).
Bystanders: The majority of youth are neither bullies nor victims, but may be present during a bullying incident. Though not directly involved with the incident, the bystander may experience such negative feelings of fear, guilt, and helplessness (TA Center, 2004). According to a bystander focus group study conducted by Terry Baugh (2003), seventh- and eighth-grade youth made the following claims in regard to bullying: bullying happens all the time; bullying happens to everyone; youth who are viewed as different are victims; they (bystanders) do not intervene because of fear; they have a desire to not be involved; they feel helpless; and it’s fun.
Cultural and Contextual Factors on Bullying and Victimization
Individuals’ external characteristics (e.g., thick glasses or red hair) are typically not as significant in eliciting bullying as perceived internal characteristics of weakness and vulnerability. However, youth with disabilities are “particularly vulnerable and represent a high-risk group for becoming both potential victims and perpetrators of bullying and teasing” (Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003).
Gender is another factor that influences bullying and aggression. Studies frequently reveal that boys bully and are bullied more often than girls; boys are more likely than girls to engage in physical bullying; and girls are more likely than boys to engage in verbal or relational bullying (Nansel et. al, 2001; Olweus, 1993). However, these findings may be due to the way in which bullying is defined and identified, and they warrant further exploration (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).
The limited amount of research investigating the influence of racial and ethnic differences on bullying and victimization have not shown race and ethnicity to be a risk factor for youth violence, apart from other life circumstances (Surgeon General, 2001). However, researchers must be cautious of generalizing risk factors for bullying across ethnicities and cultures, and further research should explore the interplay of race, ethnicity, and culture among youth of color to identify risk and protective factors for those groups.
In general, further research must address the many contextual factors (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, and mental health) that interact to influence bullying.
What Youth Say about Bullying
Researchers, educators, clinicians, community members, families, and any adults working to effectively address the problem of youth bullying, must remain aware of differences in the ways that adults and children think about bullying.
For example, according to an online presentation of the National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Coordinators (2004), an unpublished survey revealed that youth ranging in age from 5 to 20 years did not think that negative actions had to be repeated to be considered bullying (one of the three commonly held criteria for bullying). This finding suggests that youth may deem a specific, aggressive incident just as harmful and hurtful as repeated negative actions, and it may behoove researchers to reevaluate common assumptions of bullying. Additionally, two-thirds of students believe that schools respond poorly to bullying, with a high percentage of students believing that adult help is infrequent and ineffective (Hoover & Stenhjem, 2003).
Research has shown that the presence of friends helps to buffer children from bullies (AMA, 2002; Baugh, 2003) and we must empower bystanders and all youth to take a stand against bullying and to intervene on the behalf of victims. Olweus (1993) stated that experts must encourage students to demonstrate leadership in recognizing bullying, refusing to participate, and in coming to the aid of victims skillfully and nonviolently. However, to do so, we must promote a safe, caring environment in which youth feel comfortable in speaking out against bullying, and adults must, therefore, respect youth’s voices and perspectives on their personal experiences with bullying.
A Comprehensive Response to Bullying
As shown in the theory and practice of effective youth violence prevention programs, combating bullying requires a comprehensive, coordinated effort among community members, educators, policymakers, clinicians, families, and youth. Everyone must be involved and better trained to recognize the warning signs of bullying and victimization. In recent years, more states and schools have begun to address actively the issue of bullying. The federal government is planning a $3.4 million campaign to combat bullying, through support from more than 70 education, law enforcement, civic, and religious groups. Students have played a significant part in shaping this campaign. This effort will frame bullying as a public health concern, and it plans to target youth and adults (Feller, 2003). The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) is also preparing to launch a new bullying prevention campaign, with three specific goals: 1) raise public awareness of bullying; 2) recommend a call to action; and 3) create opportunities to intervene and prevent bullying (TA Center, 2004). This campaign is based on research that has shown parents who spend 15 minutes or more with their children each day can have a positive impact on their children’s behavior and on the family unit.
Research on Bullying and Family Involvement
Parental involvement is an integral component in the implementation and success of many evidence-based violence prevention programs. Research on bullying underscores the importance of families in bully intervention and prevention (Berkey, Keyes & Longhurst, 2001; Stevens et. al, 2002).
Families should be better equipped to recognize and respond to the needs of their bullying or bullied children. A study conducted by Stevens et al. (2002) showed that children’s perceptions of family functioning differed among bullies, bully/victims, victims, and noninvolved children (for example, bullies reported less family cohesion and greater use of punishment). Parents did not perceive any of the family problems reported by the children (particularly by the bullies). The findings underscore the importance of caregivers’ roles in fostering a personal, open, and communicative relationship with their children to understand their children’s perceptions and to recognize and address the symptoms and harmful repercussions of bullying and victimization.
Families high in conflict who engage in bullying and aggressive behaviors at home, are more likely to have children who exhibit bullying behavior (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Parents of bullies should model nonaggressive behavior and work with their children to solve problems nonviolently. Additionally, caregivers of bullies should work to build on their children’s strengths through encouraging and reinforcing positive behavior.
Evidence-Based Promising Practices in Bullying Intervention and Violence Prevention
Over the past decade, several violence prevention programs have been effectively implemented and have revealed positive results for bully prevention.
Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (Olweus, 1993), a universal intervention for the reduction and prevention of bully/victim problems, emphasizes adult awareness and involvement as an important general prerequisite to effective implementation of the program. The Intervention Campaign Against Bully-Victim Problems is a nationwide program undertaken in Norway in the early 1990s and has since been replicated in England, Germany, and the United States. This program targets students in elementary, middle, and junior high school. It begins with an anonymous student questionnaire designed to assess bullying problems in individual schools. The Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire is considered an important tool for raising awareness and increasing involvement of the adults at school and facilitating teacher/parent collaboration on actively addressing bullying. Parents and teachers use this information to implement school-, classroom-, and individual-level interventions designed to address the bullying problems identified in the questionnaire, including individual work with students identified as bullies and victims. Teachers and students work together at the classroom level to establish and reinforce a set of rules about behavior and bullying, creating a positive, antibullying climate. This program has both individual and school-wide change objectives. In elementary and junior high schools in Bergen, Norway, bullying problems were cut in half two years after the intervention. Antisocial behavior, including theft, vandalism, and truancy, also dropped during these years, and the social climate of the school improved. Replication programs in other countries have revealed similar effects (Olweus, 1993; Surgeon General, 2001; Center for Study and Prevention of Violence).
A study on factors that predicted the implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program at the teacher/classroom level conducted by Kallestad & Olweus (2003) revealed that few teachers (6% of 89 teachers at 37 schools) involved parents in anti-bullying work in the classroom. In order to become more aware of a child’s involvement with bullying behavior (as a bully or a victim), parents must be informed about the bullying circumstances of the school environment and involved with prevention work taking place, so that they also can encourage such anti-bullying practices and strategies outside of the classroom. Parents should also encourage schools to administer the Bully/Victim Questionnaire to provide a realistic picture of bully/victim problems in the school setting, if a bully prevention program is not in place.
Families and Schools Together (FAST Track). FAST Track is a long-term, comprehensive intervention program that combines social skills training, parent training, home visitation, academic tutoring, and classroom behavior management techniques. FAST Track requires the active involvement of community members. The intervention is guided by a developmental theory that suggests the interaction of multiple influences on the development of antisocial behavior, which can manifest itself in bullying. The program targets children identified as disruptive in kindergarten and aims to prevent severe, chronic conduct problems by increasing communication and strengthening bonds between the school, improving cognitive and problem-solving skills, and improving peer relationships. Evaluation of the program has revealed that FAST Track has positive effects on several risk factors associated with youth violence, including academic achievement and parent-child relationships. Long-term follow-up studies are in progress and are exploring whether FAST Track has a significant effect on children’s antisocial behavior (The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (1), 2002; Surgeon General, 2001).
Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT): LIFT is a prevention program designed for delivery to children and parents within the elementary school setting. The three major components of this program are: 1) classroom-based child social and problem skills training; 2) playground-based behavior modification; and 3) group-delivered parent training. The primary focus of the LIFT program is on parents and parenting behaviors. Parents are invited to attend six group-training sessions at their child’s school, in which they are taught skills for coaching children’s peer relationships, including techniques for creating peer situations where children are likely to be successful. They are asked to complete a questionnaire on their child’s skills with peers and their involvement with their child’s peer relationships. Discussion is held around a few of the specific responses parents give. Three points are emphasized in helping children deal with peer conflict: 1) assess the problem; 2) develop a plan with your child to help solve the problem; and 3) stay involved and review how the plan worked. Additionally, four strategies for creating situations where children can be successful in dealing with a problem are presented: 1) suggest activities with a common goal; 2) reward group accomplishment; 3) find your child’s strengths and create situations that build on strengths; and 3) pay close attention during your child’s peer situations.
Eddy et. al (2000) conducted a three-year evaluation of LIFT and found several significant results. Children in the LIFT group were less aggressive on the playground and were perceived as more positive by their teachers than children in the control group. Additionally, parents of children in the LIFT group behaved less aversively with their children during family problem-solving discussions than did parents of children in the control group. The long-term results revealed that within three years following the intervention, youth in the fifth grade were 2.2 times more likely to affiliate with misbehaving peers than youth who received the LIFT program. Fifth-grade controlled youth were also 1.8 times more likely to be involved in patterned alcohol use, 1.5 times more likely to have tried marijuana. Furthermore, fifth-grade controlled youth were 2.4 times more likely to be arrested during middle school than LIFT youth.
Evidence-Based, Realistic Steps for Communities and Families Seeking to Implement a Violence Prevention Program
- Establish a parent/community council to address the issue of bullying taking place in the school and/or community.
- Encourage collaboration among parents, educators, clinicians, agencies, policymakers, and youth within the community—community members must become active participants in creating a caring climate that combats the numerous roots of youth bullying.
- Administer a questionnaire (e.g., Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire) to students, teachers, and parents to assess the bullying problem in the school and to identify potential bullying/bullied students.
- Develop specific plan for individualized work with the identified students.
- Identify clear classroom and individual behavioral objectives, which can be observed and quantified.
- Develop a set of rules and behaviors to reinforce an anti-bullying climate.
- Train teachers, school officials, parents, students, and community members in the anti-bullying curriculum (e.g., Olweus Bullying Prevention Program), and develop a shared plan to apply and encourage these strategies inside and outside of the school.
- Empower students to act as role models for other students in schools (i.e., establish a peer mediation program).
- Encourage active parent involvement in the anti-bullying program.
- Establish realistic goals and recognize that reducing bullying behavior and changing community climate cannot be achieved overnight.
Sources: Berkey et al., 2001; Eddy et al., 2000; Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Kallestad & Olweus, 2003).
Informative Links
References
American Medical Association. (2002, May). Educational Forum on Adolescent Health: Youth Bullying. Chicago, IL: Author.
Baugh, T. (2003). Bystander Focus Groups: Bullying: Roles, rules, and coping tools to break the cycle. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Berkey, L. G., Keyes, B. J., & Longhurst, J. E. (2001). Bullying-proofing: What one district learned about improving school climate. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 9 (4): 224-228.
Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention. Retrieved January, 2004 from www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/index.html. (You may also order Olweus Bully Prevention Program materials from this site.)
Eddy, J. M., Reid, J. B., & Fetrow, R. A. (2000). An elementary school-based prevention program targeting modifiable antecedents of youth delinquency and violence: Linking the interests of families and teachers. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, (3): 165-176.
Espelage, D. L. & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32,(3): 365-83.
Storch, E. A & Esposito, L. E. (2003). Peer victimization and posttraumatic stress among children. Child Study Journal, 33.
Feller, B. (2003, December). U.S. frames bullying as health issue. The Associated Press. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.psycport.com/stories/ap_2003_12_07_-----_1653-0159-Bullying..xml.html.
Hoover, J. & Stenhjem, P. (2003). Bullying and teasing of youth with disabilities: Creating positive school environments for effective inclusion. National Center on Secondary Education and Transition, 2, (3). Available at: http://www.ncset.org/publications/printresource.asp?id=1332.
Kallestad, J. H. & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6, (21), American Psychological Association. Available at: http://www.journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060021a.html.
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. Journal of American Medical Association, 284 (16), 2094-100.
Office of the Surgeon General (2001). Youth violence: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stevens, V., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Van Oost, P. (2002). Relationship of the family environment to children’s involvement in bully/victim problems at school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31, (6): 419-428.
The Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). The implementation of the FAST track program: An example of a large-scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30: 1-17.
The National Training and Technical Assistance Center for Drug Prevention and School Safety Program Coordinators. (2004). Exploring the nature and prevention of bullying. Online event: February 2-6, 2004: Available at http://www.k12coordinator.org/events.cfm
