University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Educational Psychology Papers and Educational Psychology, Department of

Publications

2003

Research on School Bullying and Victimization: What Have We

Learned and Where Do We Go from Here? [Mini-Series]
Dorothy L. Espelage
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, espelage@uiuc.edu

Susan M. Swearer Napolitano

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, sswearernapolitano1@unl.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers

Part of the Educational Psychology Commons

Espelage, Dorothy L. and Swearer Napolitano, Susan M., "Research on School Bullying and Victimization:
What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here? [Mini-Series]" (2003). Educational Psychology
Papers and Publications. 154.
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/154

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Psychology, Department of at
DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Psychology
Papers and Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
 Copyright 2003, National Association of School Psychologists. Used by permission.

School P,ychol(J~Y Review.

2003, Voluille 12. No.3, pp. :lbS-.1H I

MINI--SERIES
Research on School Bullying and Victiluization: What
Have We Learned and Where Do We Go From Here?

Dorothy L. Espelage
Unit1ersity of lilinuis. Urbana,Champaign

Susan M. Swearer
Uni~Nrsity of Nebrmka,Lincoln

Abstract. This special i,sue nn bullying and victimization in Schooll',I'rc!l%gr

Rel'ieu' highlights current research elTol1:> in American schools on bullying and
peer victimization. and how this research can inform prevention and intervention
planning. nlis introductory article provides a brief overview of several major in-
sights gained over the last decade from research on bullying in school-aged youth
and sets the stage for the special issue. Research on psychosOl:ial currelates in
bullying behaviors is reviewed and four insights that provide directions fur future
research are derived. The contributing authors in the special i,sue augment these
insights by examining the intluence of the peer ecology on bullying (Rodkin &
Hodges. 20031. using longitudinal and multivariate melhodologies in bullying re-
search (Long & Pellegrini. 20(3). assessing the climales within the schuol where
bullying typically occurs (letT. Power. Cosligan. & Manz. 20m I. exploring imple-
mentation issues of school-wide bullying prevention programming (Orpinas. Home.
& Staniszewski. 2003 I. reviewing laws and policies lo address bullying (Limher
& Small. 20(3), and challenging researchers to reach a consensus on bullying
research (Furlong. Morrison. & Greif. 20m).

School bullying among children and ado-
lescents has been the focus of many interna-
tional studies over the last 30 years. In his semi-
nal research, Norwegian scholar Daniel
a"
Olweus ( 1972) coined bullying "mobbing."
and defined it as an individual or a group of
individuals harassing, tcasing. or pestering
another person. However, it was not until 1982
that school officials in Norway turned their
attention to school bullying, and did so only
after three 14-year-old boys committed suicide
as a result of extreme harassment from class-
mates (Olweus, 1993). Following these events.
the Ministry of Education in Norway launched
a national campaign against bullying in which
a prevention program was implemented in ev-
ery primary and secondary school. Indeed.
many other countries have recognized bully-
ing as a serious concern. including England.
Italy. Canada. Japan. the United States. and
Australia. to name a few.
Recent events in the United States raise
some issues about the transportability of inter-
national findings to the culture of American

Address correspondcnce rcgarding this article to Dorothy L. Espelagc. Ph.D.. Derallmcnt of Educational
Psychology. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. College of Education. 226 Educatiun Building.
1310 South Sixth Street. Champaign. lL 61820-6lJ90; E-mail: espelage@uiuc.edu.

l65
School P.,ycholof4Y Review. 2UlU. Volume .11. No. J
schools. For example. the recent concern over
school shootings in the United States has led
to many schools to adopt "zero-tolerance" poli-
cies for aggressive behavior. including bully-
ing. However. what happens to these youth
who arc suspended or expelled for aggressive
behavior"? Compulsory education mandates
that these slUdents receive a "free and appro-
priate education." Thus. these students return
to school. TIle United States has a history of
legislative mandates that affect education for
all stutlents in this country. Additionally. the
U.S. government has intluenced etlucationul
policies and practices (i.e .. DARE campaign).
In fall 2003. the U.S. Department of Health
anti Human Services is launching a multiyear
national bullying public awareness and preven-
tion campaign. What might be the effect of this
public awareness campaign on antibullying
policies in American schools'!
Rationale for this Special Issue
In the past 3 years several special issues
tlevoted to resem'ch on bullying have been pub-
lished in national anti international journals
(Elias & Zins. Eds.. Journal ofApplied School
Psychology. 2003; School Psychologv llltema-
tiol/ul. 2000; GeiTner & Loring. Eds.. JounUlI
Id' EmoTiol/al Abuse. 200 I; and Smith & Brian.
Etls.. Aggressive Behlll'iOl; 20{X)). It is surpris-
ing that only four special issues have been de-
voted to this topic when schools are increasingly
being mandated to develop antibullying policies.
Therefore. given the dearth of articles on bully-
ing and victimization in the .ioumal that has one
of the largest school personnel readerships. it is
timely for a special issue on research on bully-
ing and victimization to appear in School Psy-
chology ReI'iew. [n a Psych[NFO search of ar-
ticles on bullying and victimization from 1980
to the present in School P.I'ydlO/ogv Review.
only four articles that focused on bullying and
victimization were found. Of these four ar-
ticles. only three specifically focused on bul-
lies and victims (Batsdle & Knotf. 1994; Lett".
Kupersmidt. Patterson. & Power. 1999; Lei"'.
Power. ManL. Costigan. & Nabors. 20(1). This
special issue tills a gap in the literature and will
be a critical resource for school psychologists
and etlucators working in our nation's schools.
The three aforementioned articles on
bullying publishetl in School Psychology Re-
view have set the stage for this special issue
on bullying research. In 1994. Batsche and
Knoff stated that bullying was a pervasive
problem and urged researchers and practitio-
ners to consider bullying as a pervasive form
of violence. They encouraged school person-
nel and researchers to examine the relation-
ship between school climate. academic perfor-
mance. and bullying. Five years later. Lcffantl
colleagues tackled the tlifficult issue of accu-
rate assessment of bullies and victims (LetT et
al.. 1999). They found that teachers more ac-
curately identified elementary versus middle
school bullies and victims and that multiple
teacher reports increased accurate itlentifica-
tion of bullies and victims. Finally. they found
low concordance between peer and teacher
nominations; teachers identified less than half
of peer-nominated bullies and victims. Two
years later. Leff ct al. (2001) reviewetl five
model programs designed to reduce aggression
in schools. The tive programs reviewetl met
Chambless and Hollon's (1998) criteria for
"possibly etlicacious" programs and were: (a)
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategics
(PATHS). (b) Second Step. (c) First Step to
Success. (d) Anger Coping Program. and (e)
Brain Power Program. LetT anti colleagues
noted that missing from many of these pro-
grams was a focus 011 relational aggression.
Given the relationship between relational and
overl aggression. this omission has serious
implications for effectively treating all forms
of aggression. including hullying,
In addition to school psychologists. de-
velopmental psychologists in the U.S. have
also studied peer victimization and its tletri-
mental effects for many years (see J uvonen &
Graham. 2001 for a review). Similarly. physi-
cal aggression anti more extreme forms of vio-
lence have been investigated for decades in the
United States by sociologists, psychologists,
and criminologists (e.g.. Dishion. French. &
Pallerson. 1995: Goldstein. 19lJ4: Loeber &
Stollthamer-Loeber. [998). Unfortunately.
fewer studies have focused exclusively on bul-
lying. so scholars and clinicians have usetl fintl-
ings from international studies to guide pre-

vention and intervention efforts in the United
States. Despite our nation's slow start. many
active research programs on bullying are mak-
ing significant advances in our under~tanding
of the dynamics of bullying, how it emerges.
and how to effectively intervene. This article
is intended to provide the foundation for the
special issue on bullying and peer victimiza-
tion in School Psychology Rel'iel\' by highlight-
ing some of the major findings that have re-
cently emerged from studies conducted in
American schools. However. there continue to
be some areas dominated hy intemational re-
search and this research is also included. Over-
all. the goal of this special issue is to highlight
how extant theoretical and empirical research can
guide bullying prevention and intervention ef-
forts in schools. An additional goal is to empha-
size the questions that remain unanswered about
the dynamics of bullying in American schools.
and to provide directions for future research.
Incidence of Bullying in Schools
The exact prevalence of bullying is dif-
ticult to generate as definitions and measures
used across studies vary tremendously. How-
ever. evidence from several large-scale stud-
ies in midwestern and southeastern U.S.
schools suggests that bullying behavior is quite
common (Espelage. BoswOIth. & Simon. 2000:
Hoover. Oliver, & Hazier. 1992: Limber et al..
1997). In a study ofjunior high and high school
students from midwestem towns. Hw"i- reported
having observed bullying and 77o/r. reported
being a victim of bullying during their school
years (Hoover et aI., 1992). Similarly. 25(lc of
students in Grades 4 through 6 admitted to
bullying another student with some regularity
in the 3 months preceding the study (Limber
et al.. 1997). A more recent study in the }our-
I/al of the Americal/ Medical Associatiol/
(Nansel et al.. 200 I) demonstrated the serious-
ness of bullying in schools. These authors sur-
veyed 15,686 ~tudents in Grades 6 through 10
across the U.S. and found that a total of29.9%
of the sample reported frequent involvement
in bullying. with 13% as a bully. 10.6% as a
victim. and 6% as a bully-victim.
Further support for the need to address
bullying was provided by a report conducted
Res(·arch on School Bullying
by the U.S. Secret Service (VossekuiL Fein.
Reddy. Borum. & Modzeleski. 2(02). In this
interview-based investigation of the friends.
families. and neighbors nf 41 school shooter~
(between 1l)74-2000l. a startling finding
emerged. Attempting to uncover familial or
psychological profiles that could be helpful in
identifying future school shooters. the Secret
Service discovered one commonality among
the shooters: 71 % had been targets of a bully.
Although school violence has decreased over
the past 4 years (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services. 20(1). this report still raises
concern about how students treat each other
and suggests that schools should focus on mak-
ing schools Soafer places where £II/ students feel
protected and valued and that the consequences
of neglecting psychosocial functioning may
have dire results.
It is therefore nol surprising that many
state legislatures (e.g .. Wisconsin. Illinois.
Colorado) have mandated that schools adopt a
bully policy and/or bully prevention plan to
address this significant problem (see Furlong
et al.. 2003: Limber & SmaiL 20(3). As such.
teachers. school administrators. social work-
ers. counselors. and concerned parents are at-
tempting 10 adhere to state mandates. often
within short time frames. to create bully poli-
cies and to design. implement. and evaluate
bully prevention programs. Although research
has consistently highlighted specitic compo-
nents important for bullying prevention pro-
grams (e.g., teacher training. imp0l1ance of
peer grouP). this information is not always
readily accessible to practitioners. Thus. this
special issue attempts to lessen the sciencc-
practice gap.
Insights Gained
To this end. this special issue highlights
current research efforts in American schools
on bullying and peer victimization, and links
this research to prevcntion and intervention
planning. A brief overview of several major
insights gained over the last decade in hully-
ing research is prcsented. The insights are not
intended to be an exhamtive list. but are in-
tended to set the stage for the special issue and
future research.
 School P~ychology Review, 2UUI, Voluml" 32, No,
Insight l: Defining and Assessing
Bullying and Peer Victimization are
Complex Tasks
Defining Bullying
Perhaps, the most challenging aspect of
bullying prevention programming is real:hing
a l:onsensus on a definition of bullying. A num-
ber of definitions exist in the literature: how-
ever. although these conceptualizations differ
semantically. many of them have one similar-
ity: Bullring is (/ suhset (l(aggress;ol1 (Dodge.
ItJl)l: Olweus, 1993: Rivers & Smith. 1994:
Smith & Thompson, 1991 ). The following deti-
nitions are commonly found in the literature:
A per,on i, heing hullied ",.. hen he or ~he i,
expo,ed. repeatedly over time. 10 negative
actions on the part of one or more other stu-
dellls, ,Olweus. IlJlJJ. p, 9)
A student is heing hullied nrpicked nn when
another sludent says nasty and unpleasant
thill!!, 10 him or her. It i, al,o bullvin~ when a
slud~nt is hit. kicked. threateneci, k;-cked in-
side a rolllll. senl nasty noll'S. and when no
ever talks til him, (Smith & Sharp. 1994. p, 1)
Bullying is longstanding violence, physical
or mental. conducled bv an indi vidual or
group and directed again;t an individual who
is no1 able to defend himself in Ihe actual
~illlation. (Roland. 1989. p. 143)
Thus, bullying is defined in the literature as a
repeated behavior (including both verbal and
physical behaviors) that occurs over time in a
relationship chm'acterized by ml imbalance of
strength and power (O!weus. 1994). Given this
imbalance of strength and power. it is difficult
for the person being bullied to defend himselfor
herself.
Researchers who study bullying can
'"borrow" from the aggression literature as they
struggk to ddine and assess bullying behav-
iors. One well-accepted typology of aggression
includes Dodge's ( 1991) categorization of pro-
active versus reactive aggression. Proactive or
instrumental aggression includes behavior that
is directed a1 a victim to obtain a desired out-
come, such as gaining propelty. power. or af-
filiation. In l:ontrasL reactive aggression is di-
nxted at the victim as a result of an aversive
event thaI elicited anger or frustration on the
part of the perpetrator, The majority of bully-
3bIJ
j
ing has been viewed as proacti ve aggression
because bullies often seek out their targets with
lillie provocation and do so for extended peri-
ods of time.
Others have distinguished bullying from
other forms of aggression using the typology
of direCI versus indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist.
Lagerspetz. & Kaukiainen. 1992; Olweus,
1993) or overt versus coven aggression (Crick.
1995; Crick. Casas. & Ku. 19(9). Direct (overt)
aggression includes physical fighting (e.g ..
pushing, shoving, kicking) and verbal threat-
ening behavior (e.g .. name-calling. teasing)
that is face-to-face confrontation: whereas in-
direct aggression (covert) includes a third-party
in which verhal aggression is at:t:olllplished
through rumor spreading and name-calling.
Relational aggression has emerged in the
literature as another form of aggression or bul-
lying. Coined by Nit:ki Cril:k and wlleagucs.
relational aggression is defined as aggression
directed at damaging a relationship. Put another
way. in relational aggression. relationships are
used as a means to haml (Crick & Grotpeter.
IY(6). For example. relationally aggressive
youth might threaten to exclude a friend from
a social activity if he or she does not go along
with the aggressor, Students might also spread
rumors about a close peer as a way of retaliat-
ing when their target did not go along \vith the
crowd. To date. relational aggression is defined
and assessed as verbal aggression: however. it
is also plausible that some students damage
friendships through physical force or threat of
physil:al forl:e.
In summary. despite their disparate na-
ture, most definitions of bullying include the
notion that bullying includes both physical anJ
verbal aggression. which is a systematic. on-
going set of behavior instigated by an indi-
vidual or a group of individuals who are at-
tempting to gain power, prestige. or goods.
Tadics might also be direded at the threat of
withdrawal of a friendship.
Assessment of BuUying and
Victimization
Researchers, school personnel. and state
boards of cdul:<llion are not only being asked
to detine bullying. but are also encouraged to

assess bullying and victimization from mul-
tiple soun.:es (e.g .. students. parents. teachers)
to design programs that are applicable to their
school ecology. It is critical to discuss the vari-
ous types of assessment methods used to esti-
mate the incidence of bullying and to identify
bullies. victims. bully-victims. and bystanders
(Solberg & Olweus. 2003). These methods in-
clude: self-report. peer nominations. teacher
nominations. and behavioral observations.
Self-report scales and surveys. Self-
report is often the preferred method of assess-
ment for research purposes and for school per-
sonnel to gather information about bullying in
their school. Examples can be found through-
out the extant literature (Espelage. Bosworth.
& Simon. 200 I: Olweus. 1989: Rigby & Slee.
1999). A common self-report bullying scale
involves asking students directly (under assur-
ance of confidentiality) how often they en-
gaged in certain behaviors over a specified time
period (e.g .. past 30 days). For example. the
Un iversi ty of III inoi s Aggression scales
(Espelage. Holt. & Henkel. 20(3) include a
bullying suhscale that assesses name-calling.
teasing. rumor spreading. exclusion. and teas-
ing others. These scales also include a distinct
scale that assesses frequency of physical fight-
ing. Items are summed to create a composite
score and bullies are often identified as those
students scoring at the extreme end of this con-
tinuum. These same methods are used to iden-
tify victims. except that the categorization is
based on items related to the frequency of be-
ing bullied. Another type of self-report mea-
sure involves providing students with a defi-
nition of bullying and then asking them to re-
spond to questions about bullying and victim-
ization IOlweus, 19H9: Swearer. 20{) I ). These
surveys (.'omprehensively assess bullying in-
cidents by soliciting locations where bullying
occurs. who engaged in the bullying. how
school personnel responded. and attitudes to-
ward bullying. Self-report survey data arc also
collected from parents and school statf about
their perceptions of school bullying. An advan-
tage of self-report is that these data can be col-
lected at multiple time points to assess changes
in bullying as a result of prevention efforts.
One issue that should be the focus of future
i{e'blrch on School Bullying
research is whether students are provided with
a definition of bullying when responding to
measures designed to assess bullying. Although
some argue that a definition should be provided
(Solberg & 01weus, 20(3), nthers argue the
definition might "prime" a student against re-
sponding honestly (Espelage et al.. 200 I ). This
definitional issue is fundamentally related to
accurate assessment of hullying and to con-
clusions researchers make about this cOTllplex
dynamic (Solberg & Olweus. 20(3).
Peer and teacher nomination tasks.
Nomination procedures are sometimes used to
identify students for targeted interventions. but
are predominantly utilized for research pur-
poses because of the legal and ethical issues
surrounding gathering student names. FUl1her-
more. they are easier to use in elementary
schools (as compared to middle and high
school) because teachers have more interac-
tion with students and students do not change
classes. At the elementary school level. teach-
ers and stude IllS m'e presented with a roster and
asked to nominate classmates that fit certain
descriptors (e.g.. hits. argues. teases. fights.
gets picked on: Boulton. 1997). Nominations
are then tallied for each participant and stu-
dents with a substantial number of nominations
are considered bullies. victims. or both. When
used with middle and high school students. stu-
dents are asked to nominate three to eight males
and females who fit certain descriptors (e.g ..
tease. exclude: Espelage et al.. 2003). This lat-
ter method does not provide peer- and teacher-
nomination data for all students. rather identi-
fies students who are engaging in these behav-
iors at the greatest frequency. Thus. self-report
methods are prekn'ed when the purpose of data
collection is to gather attitudinal and behav-
ioral data from all students and teachers.
Behavioral observations. Direct be-
havioral observations of children and adoles-
cents in the natural school setting is an ideal
manner of collecting data on bullying fre-
quency and the role of all students (Craig &
Pepler. 1997: Salmi valli. Lagerspetl.
Bjorkqvist. Oestemlan. & Kaukiainen. 1996l.
For example. Craig and Pepler ( 1997) video-
taped aggressive and socially competent Ca-
16'1
 School Psychology Revicw, 2U01, Volumc 12 No.1
nadian children in Grades I through 6 on the
playgrouml: pl.:ers were involved in bullying
in an astounding RS0i of bully episodes.
Among other things. this involvement con-
sisted of actively participating in the episode
<309i). observing the interaction (23~). and
intervening ( 120i). FurthermlJre. pl.:ers wl.:rl.:
coded as being respectful to the bully in 74'1i
of the episodes. but respectful to the victim in
only 2Y;; of the episodes. Observational meth-
ods providl.: invaluable data about how students
interact: however. observations nel.:d to be con-
ducted across a long pcrilJd of time and in a
variety of settings (e.g .. gym, lunchroom. dif-
ferent classrooms) to assess the situational and
contextual variables that contribute to bully-
ing (Pellegrini. 20(2). For example. if the be-
havioral observations suggest that bullying fre-
quency is greatest in the lunchroom. training
of lunchroom supervisors is wan·anted. In ad-
dition. a student might not bully his or her peers
unless he or she is in a classroom with a new
teacher who is struggling with classroom man-
agement. Thus. the environment may either
encourage or inhibit thl.: bullying interaction
and these Iluctuations in the social environ-
ment may affect the oull'ome of behavioral
observations.
Need for innovative assessment
methods. In recent years. human subjects re-
view boards and federal funding agencies in
the United States have placed great restrictions
on the collection of behavioral observations as
active parental consent is becoming mandatory
in many school districts. As previously noted.
Canadian researchers have videotaped bully-
ing on the playground. and hased on these stud-
ies have obtained empirical support for the
social-ecological perspective (discussed more
completely later> of bullying. A method that
has yet to be used in the area of bullying is the
Experience Sampling Method (ESM:
Csikszentmihalyi & Larson. 1987). ESM is a
method of recording daily events during hrid
periods of time and is a method for assessing
altitudes and behaviors '"in real time." This
methodology typically involves "beeping" a
participant at random or predetermined times
throughout the day with a programmed wrist-
walch or a pager. which elicits a signal to
FO
prompt the participant to complete the Experi-
ence Sampling Form (ESF). Upon receipt of
the signal, the participant completes the ESE
which is designed specifically to address the
objectives of a particular research study. Typi-
cally. the ESF includes questions about the
respondent's location. social context. activity.
thought content. and affect. For hullying re-
search. questions related to bullying and peer
victimization could be included.
Because videotaping and other observa-
lional measures present both ethical anti meth-
odological challenges to the assessment of
bullying within American schools. many re-
searchers rely on self-. teacher-. ,md peer-re-
ports. which fail to assess repetition. a charac-
teristic that distinguishes bullying from other
forms of aggression (Lane. IlJ8Y: Olweus.
19Y3: Smith & Thompson. 1991: Solberg &
Olweus. 20031. Although survey instruments
have several advantages over observational
measures (e.g .. inexpensive, more elTicient data
collection. less obtnJsive). integrating survey
research with assessments that more closely
examine these behaviors as they unfold in a
time-sensitive manner will enhance our UII-
derstanding of bullying. Givenlhat these meth-
ods may he impractical for school psycholo-
gists. this call for innovative assessments is
directed primarily at researchers.
Insight 2: Bully-Victim Behaviors Fall
Along a Continuum: Debunking the
Dyadic Bias
Current methods of assessing and cat-
egorizing students into static groups such as
"hullies" and "victims" have also been called
into 4uestion. This assessment approach as-
sumes that bullies and victims fit into a cat-
egorical. dichotomous. bully or victim dyadic
pattern. Much of the recent research 011 bully-
ing has challenged this assllmpti~)n (Bosworth.
Espelage. & Simon. 1999; Olweus. 1994:
Schwartz. Dodge. Pettit. & Bates. 1Y97; Slee.
1995; Solberg & Olweus. 2003: Swearer. Song.
Cary. Eagle. & Mickelson. 200 I ). This research
SUppOTts a conceptualization of bullying he-
haviors as dynamic rather than stalic and ar-
gues that students' iIlvo!vement falls on a con-
linllllm. Students can be involved as a bully. a

victim. a bully-victim. and/or a hystander. The
examination of hullying along a continuum
represents a significant departure from the stan-
dard practice of identifying students who re-
peatedly victimize their peers and are known
as the "bullies" or those students who are the
"victims," This continuum perspective recog-
nizcs that students tease thcir peers in more
subtle ways and on a less regular basis; ho\\'·
ever. these less frequent behaviors still have
serious effects on their targets. and thus. are
worthy of exploration. Furthermore. recent
research (Salmivalli et al.. 1996; Swearer et
al.. 20(1) suggests that students have different
bullying and victimization profiles, That is.
students are no longer classified as only vic-
tims or bullies, but can be classified as bullies.
aggressive bullies. victims. bully-victims. by-
standers. and normal controls. Given recent
sllldies showing bullying is a group phenom-
enon (see Long & Pellegrini. 2003; Rodkin &
Hodges. 20(3), it is necessary to abandon the
dyadic bias toward buUying and attend to the
various roles that students play (e.g.. bystander,
reinforcer; Salmivalli et aI., 1996) and recog-
nize the diversity of experiences along the
bully/victim continuum,
Insight 3: Relational Aggression Does
Not Account for Sex Differences in
Aggression
For decades. males have been considered
the more aggressive sex. In hundreds of stud-
ies. research on aggression has found that. as a
group. boys exhibit significantly higher levels
of aggression than girls (for review see Coie &
Dodge, 1998). Recently, however. researchers
have questioned whether males are in fact more
aggressive than females. Historically. many stud-
ies on aggression have excluded girls from the
sample (Crick & Rose. 21XlI ) and have defined
aggression as overtly physical or verbal, but have
failed to consider more subtle. covert forms.
Some have posited that if aggression was de-
fined as different types of aggressive acts, the
relationship between sex and aggression would
become less clear (Crick & Grotpeter. J 9951.
As such. several different ternlS are used
to describe covert types of aggression, includ-
ing indirect aggression and relational aggres-
Re,c',mh on S,houl Bullying
sion. Indirect aggression is defined as "social
manipulation. attacking the target in circuitous
ways" (Oestemtan et aI., 1998. p. I l. Relational
aggression includes "behaviors that are in-
tended to significantly damage anotherchild's
friendships or feelings of inclusion by the peer
group" (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, p. 711),
These include behaviors such as spreading ru-
mors. excluding peers from one's social group.
and withdrawing friendship or acceptance.
During the last 8 years. a plethora of
studies have investigated relational aggression
across the early school years into adolescence.
Relational aggression has been shown to be
more prevalent among girls than boys bel:ause
hoys typically engage in more overtly physi-
cal and verbal forms of aggression (e.g.. Cril~k.
1996; Crick. Casas. & Mosher. 1997; Crick &
Grotpeter. 1995; Rys & Bear. 1997), Different
measurement techniques have been used, in-
cluding peer-reports. teacher-reports, self-re-
ports. and naturalistic observations. Crick and
Grotpeter ( 1995) conducted one of the tirst
studies examining relational aggression and in
many ways opened the door for future research
on this type of aggression. The study included
491 third through sixth graders, from four pub·
lic schools in a midwestern town. A 19-item
peer nomination instrument was used to assess
relational aggression, overt aggression (defined
as physical and verbal). prosocial behavior, and
isolation. Peer nomination scores were used to
classify students into four groups: relationally
aggressive. overtly aggressive, both overtly and
relationally aggressive. and nonaggressive. No
sex difference was indicated in the number of
students who were classified in the
nonaggressive group: 7.'.09(' of the boys evalu-
ated and 78.39(, of the girls fell in this group.
However. statistically signiticant sex differences
were found for the overtly aggressive group:
15Hk of the boys and A% of the brirls were in
this group. Furthernlore. the relationally aggres-
sive group consisted of 2.0% of the boys and
17 A(k of the girls. The remaining children (9.4%
of the hays. 3.8f;'r of the girls) were placed in
the relationally and overtly aggressive group.
A second study (Rys & Bear. 1997) at-
tempted to replicate the findings of Crick and
Grotpeter (1995). Rys and Bear assessed rela-
~71
 School P,ychulogy I{evit·w. 2(1)3. VolumeJ2. No. ~
tional aggression among other fOllllS of aggres-
sion in 131 third graders and 135 sixth graders,
from nine elementary schools and five middle
schools in the mid-Atlantic public school sys-
tem. Given their goal of replicating the Cril:k
and Grotpeter study. they used the same peer
nomination measure to assess children's ag-
gressive and prmocial behaviors. Although
boys were more overtly aggressive than girls
and girls were more prosocial than hoys, no
sex ditlerences in relational aggression were
found, Similarly, findings in a study of 26X
middle school students also indicated no sig-
nificant sex dillerenccs on relational aggression
when implementing the Crick and Grotpeter
( 1995) relational aggression scale (Espelage et
al.. 2fXB). These contradictory findings indicate
that future research needs lo explore the con-
struct of n:]ational aggression as well as the as-
sociations to relational victimization,
Insight 4: Need to View Bullying From a
Social-Ecological Perspective
Drawing upon Bronfenhrenner's ( 1979)
pioneering work on ecological systems theory.
bullying and pc'cr victimi/ation has been con-
ceptuali/ed from a :-.ocial-ecological perspec-
tive (Dishion el al.. 1995: Swearer & Doll.
200 I ). From this theoretical framcwork. hul-
lying is an ecological phenomenon that is es-
tablished and perpetrated over time as a result
of the l'omp!ex interplay between inter- and
intra-individual variables. Individual charac-
teristics arc considered jointly influenced by a
variety of ecological contexts. induding peers.
families. schools. and community factors.
Studies have identilied individualcharacteris-
tics associated with bullying that are impor-
tant targets of intervention. However. studies
have also clearly documented that the actions
of peers. teachers and other adults at school,
physical characteristics of the school grounds,
family ractors, cultural characteristics le.g.,
race. ethnieity). and even community factors
are implicated in the development and main-
tenance of bullying. Again.st the backdrop of
the ecological framework. it is imperative that
researchers and school personnel understand
the complex ecological systems in which bul-
lying and victimization occur. This ecology
1""
needs to be a foundation of prevention and in-
tervention programs.
Individual Characteristics
Sex differences haw ben the focus of
much research on bullying and peer victim-
it.ation. However. several other key faL'lors
have consistently emerged in the literature as
important individual characteristics of students
who hully their peers.
Race/edmicity. A few studics shed light
on the role of racc/ethnicity or race on bully-
ing. but also point to lhe dearth of literature in
this area. In their large-scale survcy of approxi-
mately 16.000 U.S. youth. Nansel et al. (2001 )
found that Hispanic youth reported bullying
others only lIIarginally more than White or
Black students. whereas Black youth reported
being bullied significantly more than Whitcs
or Hispanics. Incolllrasl. Graham and Juvonen
(20021 found that African Americans were
more likely to be nominaled as aggressive than
Latino and multiethnic urban middle school
students. In a study of Asian and White chil-
dren aged 9-15 years (Moran. Smith. Thomp-
son. & Whitney. \993). no differences emerged
between these two groups on rrel.juency of
bullying others or being bullied: howe\er. SOc;
of the bullied Asian children (compared to none
or the White bullied children) \\ere called
names because of their skin color. Collectively.
the relation between race/ethnicity and bullying
is complex and is potentially intluenceL! by the
racial/ethnic composition of the classroom.
school. or community l1uvonen. Nishina. &
Graham. 20(1). FUl1hermore. it appears the
prevalence of bullies across race/ethnicity is
perhaps less important lhan how racial dynam-
ics inlluence the content of the bullying.
A~e. Although aggression i:-. often de-
scriheJ as a stahle trait over the course ofehild-
hood and adolescence. there is strong support
that bullying might have a different trajectory
(Farrington. 1991: Goldstein. 1994: Loeber &
Stouthamer-Locber. 199R). In facl. the more
typical trajectory of bullying from a develop-
mental pcrspectivc is an incrcase and peak
during early adolescence. and a decrease in
bullying during lhc high school years (Nansel

et al.. 200 I: Pellegrini & Bartini. 200 I: Smith.
Madsen. & Moody. 1999). It is therefore im-
portant for prevention and intervention efforts
to be directed at the transition from elemen-
tary to middle school. In addition to consider-
ing sex. age. and race/ethnicity influences on
bullying. other individual characteristics have
been identified as potential correlates that
should be considered in school-based preven-
tion and intervention programs.
Anger. Anger Ims consistently emerged
as an important correlate of bullying. In a study
of 558 middle school students. anger was found
to he the strongest predictor of bullying
(Bosworth et al.. 19(9). Anger was also a sig-
nificant predictor of an increase in this behav-
ior over a 6-momh period: that is. students who
were the angriest in the fall semester reported
an increase in bullying nver the school year
(bpelage et al.. 200 I ). These findings. wm-
bined with the consistent relation between ag-
gression and anger (Huesmann. 199.+ l. suggest
that anger management training might be ben-
eficial for some students who bully their peers.
Depression. Depression has been found
to be a common mental health symptom expe-
rienced by male and female victims of hully-
ing (Callagan & Joseph, 1995: Kaltiala-Heino.
Rimpela. Marttunen. Rimpela. & Rantanen.
1999: Kumpulainen. Rasanen. & Puura. 200 1:
Neary & Joseph. 199.+). Furthermore. Craig
( 199R) found higher depression levels for girls
in comparison to boys \\..ho were victimi/ed.
Depression is not. however. unique to victims
only. Clinically elevated depression levels have
been found for both malc and female students
who bully their peers (Austin & Joseph. 19lJ6:
Slee. 1995). Bully-victims. those students who
bully and have heen bullied. have also been
found to have higher rates of depression than
bullies (Austin & Joseph. 1(96) and in other
studies. bully-victims report higher depression
levels than victims (Swearer et al.. 2001l.
Kaltiala-Heino et al. ( 19(9) assessed the rela-
tionship between bully/victim status and de-
pression and suicidal ideation among adoles-
cents aged 1.+ to 16. The authors reported that
after controlling for age and sex. bully-viclJllls
exhibited the highest risk for depression. fol-
R"'l'drch on School Bullvll1g
lowed by victims. and then bullies. Bully-vIC-
tims were also the most at-risk group for sui-
cidal ideation. The high occurrence of suicidal
ideation among participant.. along the bully/
victim continuum is not surprising consider-
ing that bullying is not a static event. but rather
it occurs a.S repeated evellls over time (Hatler
& Came). 2(00). Additionally. findings from
a rel'ent analysis of Sl'hool shootings from 197-+
to 200() indicate that 7WYt- of the attackers had
a history of suicide atlempts or suiL-idal
thoughb and 61 (;It had a history of seril >Us de-
pression (Vossekuil et al.. 20021.
Anxiety. Anxiety is also a salient men-
tal health l'oncern for bullies. victims. and
hully-\'ictims. There is a paucity of research
conducted specitically on anxiety and bully-
ing. and the research that is available has
yielded inconsistent findings. Some studies
lind that \ ictillls of bullying have higher rail's
of anxiety than bullies (Craig. I99R: Olwl.'us.
1994: Slce. 199.+). whereas others rind that
bullies and victims report similar !e\'e1s of ,Ulxi-
ely (Duncan. 1991J I. To complicate the picturl.'.
hully-victims haw also been found to have
higher levels of anxiety when compared to
hullies or victims (Duncan. ]lJl)lJ: SWl.'arer L't
'11.. 200 I l. Researchers have round that victims
of hullying display increased rates of sd]()ol
refusal (Sahnon. James. ('assidy. & Ja\aloyes.
2(00). school absenteeism ISlee. Il)l)'+). so-
matic symptoms (Rigby. 19961. and physiGd
health complainl.s (Williams. Chambers. Lo-
gan. & Robinson. 1996 l. which may relled the
victim's desire to avoid school. Furthermore.
being bullied may lead \0 anxious behaviors.
which perpetuate victimi7.ation experiences
and subsequently lead to greater anxiety (Roth.
Coles. & Heimberg. 20021.
Empathy. Many bullying pre\enll\ln
programs include empathy training hased on
the extensive literature dOl'umenting the rule
of empathy in supprl.'ssing aggression I Miller
& Eisenberg. 19RX I. Research suggests that
self-declared bullies sometimes report feeling
sorry after bullying their peers (Borg. IlJlJX I:
hO\\C\·cr. many bully prevention and intef\l.'n-
lion programs assume Ihat these students Ial'k
empathy. It is plausihk that the relation !x'-
~l hoo! ['W( holo).:,· R('\I('w. 21111 \. \!olunw ;2. Nfl, \
tlleen elllpalh~ ano hullying might vary oe-
penoing Oll the cOlllponent of empathy heing
mea,ured and the type uf aggre"ion under
,tudy, Thereforc. the implementatiun of Clll-
path~ training ha,ed (In the assumption that
hullie, 00 not pu"-e,, empathy IS unwarranted,
The focu, for prelenlion ano intervention
should not be ,oldy to eraoicate bullying. hut
to foster more prosocial and respectful behav-
iors among all students. For example. although
unable to partial out the unilJue effects of em-
pathy training. the Second Sti'fl violence pre-
vention program has heen efficacious in reduc-
ing aggressilc hehaviors and increa,ing
pw,ocial bd1al ior, (Frey. Hir,chstein. &
GUllo.2000l.
One of the Ilnl~ ,tuJie, that sfll'Cifiwlll
aoore,-,e, empathic rl',p(lnding ano hullYlllg
heh~ll ior Ila, conouch:d hy Enoresen ano
Ohll'U, (2()() I I. Four 1~lrge reprl'sentatile
,ample, of N(lnlegian ;looll',cents. ranging in
age from 13 to I () years. completed the Em-
pathic Re,pon,ilene,,- Questionnairl' 10lweus
8: Endresen. 1l)9X) and two ,uhscales takell
from the Ol\wus BullylVictim Questionnaire
IOlweu.s. 19XLJ. 19%). including the Positive
Altituoe to Bullying 15 ilems) and the Bully-
ing Olhers (.+ item,) scales. The empathy mea-
sure consists of 12 items comprising three
suh'cales. inciuJing an empathy distres,
suhscale (e.g .. "It often makes me Jistressed
II hen I see something saJ lln TV"). a ,~mpa­
thelic reaction tOllaro girls ,uoscalc le,g ..
"When I see a girl who is hurt. I wish to help
ha"l. and a s~ mpathelic real'liun towarJ hoys
subscale Ic.g .. "Seeing a ho~ who is saJ makes
me want to comfol1 him"). SlUoellls indicate
on a l1-point ,cale whether the item applies to
them. from /lol allil/through lIpplii'.1 i'.\lI('f".
Results inoicaleo that girls rl')lllrtl'd
higher lowllevel, of empathic responsivcne s.
incluoing greater lel'ds Ill' emotillnal oistre ,
ano mllre empathic conCl'rn (for boys and girls)
111<In hoy . . in the ...ample. Effect ... i/e oata ... ug-
ge'tl'd that the...e 'I'X dilkrence, were ...trong.
With re,pect [0 the a,,-ociation of empathil'
re'pon,i\'ene,s and hullying othl'rs. the corre-
lations II ere relatil e1~ weak hetween hullying
and empath~ (,.... ::: -,Il() [n -.17) for gir"- and
... lightly lower for boy, 1/.... ::: -,02 to -,ILJ). The~
oiJ find. hO\I el·er. that a pllsiti\'l' attituoe to-
ward bullying Illeoiated thc as<;oci:llion be-
twecn empathIC concern and the frequency of
hullying others. In other I'llI'd.... respondent.-.
Ililh high levels of empathic conCl:'m tenoed
to liew bullying a... nl'gative and therefllre bul-
lied others less. Thi, Illediation was found for
hoth hoys and girls. This study highlight.-. the
importance of considering attitudes toward
hullying in understanding how empathy rel:ltL'S
to this subset of aggression.
Nonnative beliefs toward bullying.
Empathy i... intriL'atdy related to a student ....
view of aggre,sil1n and hullying. That i.... if a
. . tudent feel, that hullying i... "pan of growing
up" (If "hannless." he or she is less likely to
feel upset when hull~ ing (lr ohsening others
hemg hullied. Indeed. a posiliw attitude to-
lIard ;tggres.,ioll i, highl~ as-;ociated with the
propensity \(l hully other.. (Bentley & Li. 1995:
Endresen 8: Olweu .... 2001: Pellegrini. 2002,.
Bentley ano Li ( 19'.1:") found hullies (Grades
'+~()I were more likely to hold beliefs support-
iw of aggres'lon than were ...tudents who did
not hully. Whereas thi ... i... not a surprising Ilnd-
ing. it suggests a neeo to identify environlllen-
lal factors that rOSier a proviolencl' attituJI' in
sdHlols alld to recogni/e hullying a a marker
for more seriou, aggre,,-il e beha\ior (Nansel.
Overpeck. Haynie. Ruan. &: Scheidt. 2(03) In
adoition. gilell that nllt all student.-. arc thl'
"school yard hullie<' and "'01111.' l11ay take Iln
roles sudl a.' h~ stanoers. It is importalll tOUIl-
derqand hO\1 helieh ,upportile of liolellce
and el11path~ for students rdale along the bully-
I ictim continuulll,
Social skill deficit versus theory of
mind, One of the l11(1st inllul'ntialexplanalor~
model, of aggression is hased on social infor-
mation processing (Crick & Dodge. 199.+:
Dodge 8: Coil', 19X7\. This model posits that
impairmelll in ...ocia) problem solving i... im-
plicated in [ht' Oe\'e!ilpl11ent ill' aggression, Spe-
l·illcaHy. aggressi\e indi\iouab are Illore likely
to ,how encoding pnlhlcl11s such as h(btile at-
trihution err(lr. and Jeficits at the Ievd (If rL'p-
resentation. ,uch as a poor undastanding of
(I[her" mt'ntal 'tates (Crick &: Dodge. Il)l)~ I.
HoweI' er. more rel'ently. ,chobr... have hegun
to question whether this model applies to all
types of agg.ression. especially bullying. Given
that bullying includes indirect forms of aggres-
sion. such as lying and spreading rumors thaI
lead to the victim's exclusion from the group.
and that physical violence is in most of Ihe
cases carefully planned. it is plausible thaI at
leasI some bullies have a social understanding
of their behavior.
Follov,'ing this logic. Sutton and col-
leagues (Sutton. Smith. & Swettenham. ICJ9l})
challenged a social skills deficit model approach
to bullying. and emphasized thaI some bullies
understand other people very well and may use
this understanding to their own advantage. These
authors conceptualize their arguments using the
framework of theory I!fmi/lli. a conceptlhat re-
fers to one's ability to attrihule mental states to
others and oneself (Leslie. lCJ87l. Using this
framework. the authors contend that some hul-
lies may possess a theory of mind because they
target vulnerable children who will tolerate
victimization and who are not likely to recei\'e
support from peers (Salmivalli et al.. [996).
More research is needed on theory of mind and
bullying in order to substantiate the claims
made by Sutton and colleagues. Unlil then.
there is al leasl preliminary evidence that not
all children and adolescenls who bully Iheir
peers lack social skills (Garharino & Delara.
2002: Sutton et al.. 1999),
Future research on individual char.
acteristics. Despite a wealth of information
on individual characteristic" that are influen-
tial in the social-ecological model of bullying.
what is often missing from these investigations
is the consideration of how certain variables
such as ~ex. race. prior victimization. internal-
izing psychopathology. or attributions medi-
ate or moderate the association between bul-
lying/victimization and these psychological
outcomes. Future research should addrcs~ these
multivariate influences and should examine
these influences over time.
Peer.Level Characteristics in the
Bullying Dynamic
Peers have long been implicated in in-
fluencing children's and adolescent's social
behavior ("ce Hartup. 19H3 for a review).
Given the social-ecological perspcctive that
individual characteristics of adolesccnts inter-
act with group-level fa,;.·lOr.... many scholars
have turned their allention to how peers con-
trihute to aggression and hullying (Espelage
et '11.. 2003: long & Pellegrini. 2003: Pellegrini
& long. 2002: Rodkin. Farmer. Pearl. & Van
Acker. 2000: Rodkin & Hodge.... 2003l, Sev-
eraltheories are receiving increased allention
in the lilerature and are discussed briet1y next.
Homophily hypothesis. Peer group
member"hip becomes extremely important
during laIc childhood and early adole"cence
(Eccles. Wigfield. & Schiefele. 1998: Ruhin.
Bukov.'ski. & Parker. ICJ98). It is during this
developmental time period that peer groups
form based on ...imilarities in propinquity. sex.
and raCt~ (Cairns & Cairns. ICJ94: Leung. 1994).
and groups tend to be "imilar on behavioral
dimensions such as sml)king beha\ior I Ennen
& Bauman. 1994) and academic achievement
(Ryan. 200 I). This within-group similarity is
called hU/l/uphilY (Berndt. 1982: Cohcn. 1977:
Kandel. 1(78). Although the homophily hy-
pothesis has been supported in studies of overt.
physical aggression among elemenlary school
student" (Cairns. Leung. & Cairns. 19CJ)). only
one study included an examination of the
hOl11ophily hypothesis or bUllying. In a study
of middle school slUdent". social network
analysi" (S;\iA) was used to identify peer net-
work'. and hierarchical linear modeling (HlM)
was employed to detcmline the extent III which
peers influcnced cach olher in bullying their
peers. Results supported the homophily hy-
pothesis for bullying and fighting among sixth-
eighth graders over a I-year period (Espelage
et al.. 20(3). The effect was stronger for bul-
lying than fighting. sugge"ting that peer influ-
ence plays a bigger role for low-level aggres-
sion than fighting. Put simply. srudent" tended
to hang out with studenls who bullied at simi-
lar frequencies. and students who hung out with
sludents who bullied others reported an in-
crease in bullying over the school year. Al-
though males in this sample reported slightly
more bullying than females. the hOll1ophily
hypothesis for bullying was supported for both
male and female peer groups. These findings
su~g~st that prevention dforts should incllr-
porate a discussion \\ ith stuLknts about lhe
pressure they experIence from peer" to engage
in hullying and the real harriers to stand up to
this powerful social influence.
Dominancl' theory. Early adolesc~nc~
IS also a time in which bullying increases
(Pellegrini. 2002: Pellegrini &: Long. 2002:
Smith et 'II.. 191)4). A potenlial explanation for
this increase is dominance theory. Dominance
is vil'wed as a relationship factor in which in-
dividuals are arranged in a hierarchy in terms
of lheir access to resourL'es, Pellegrini (20021
argues that lhe Iransition to middle school re-
quires "lUdenh to renegoliate their dominance
relationships. and bully ing is thought to hl' a
deliberate qrategy used to 3lt3in dominance
in newly formed peer groups. In an empirical
lest of dominanl'e Iheory of proactive aggres-
sion and bullying. Pellegrini 3nd Long (20021
found. atkast in one sample. that hullying was
used more frequently by boys \\ hll targeted
lheir aggression IOwaI'd othl'r boys during this
transilion. Certainly. this resl'arch supporh thL'
idea that malcs cngage in more bullying than
girl:- during thl' Iransition to middle school. but
it also highlights the importancc of studying
this increase as a result of the complex intcr-
action among the need for dominance, changes
in social surroundings and peer group struc-
ture. and the desire III intcract with the oppo-
sitc sex,
Attraction theory. Altral'tion ths'ory
posits that young adolescel1ls in their n('ed to
establish separation from their parents hecome
attral'!ed 10 other youth \\ ho possess charac-
teristics that rt'11ect independenl'e (e.g .. ddin-
qucncy. aggr('ssitln. distlb~dienc~) and ar~ less
attracted to individuals who poss~ss charal'-
teristics more descriptive of childhtlod (e,g ..
complianc~. oh~dience) (Bukow'ski, Sippola.
& Newcomh. 2000: Moffill. 1993). Thesc au-
thors arguc that early adolesl'ents manage thL'
transition from primary to secondary schools
through their altractipns to pcers whu ar~ ag-
gressi\e, In their slud~ PI' 217 hoys and girls
during this transition. Bukowski and clllleagues
fllund that girls' allLl boy" attraction to aggres-
si\ <.: pc~rs increased upon the entry to middle
sdwol. ThiS Increase \\~IS greater for girls.
which is consistent with Pellegrini and Bartmi ....
t20{)! ) finding Ihat at lhe end uf middle schuol
girb nominated "dominant boys" as dates ttl a
hypothetical party, This theory. along with Ihe
honwphily hyputhcsis and dominance theo!).
d~nHlllstrate the compl('\ nature of bullying
during em'ly ado!escenL'c and undersl'orl's Ihe
nc~d 10 mow beyond descriptive studies uf
bullying among hoys and girls.
Familial Characteristics
Literature un aggression and familial
factor.s has provided considerable support for
the association h('twl'en genl'ral aggressive
hehavior in youth and lack tlf family cohesion
(Gorman-Smith. Tulan. Zelli. & Huesmann.
1(96). inade4uate parl'ntal superviSion
I Farrington. 14Y I J. family \ ioknce
I Thornberry. Il)Y-l1. hostile discipline tech-
niques (Loeber & Oishion. 19X31. and ptlor
modeling of problclll-sul\ing skills (Tolan.
(·romwell. & Braswdl. 19X6l. Addititlnally.
high levels otramily contliL'l and parental prob-
lems such as drug USl' and incarceration are
correlates of aggressiun in youth (Hengg('lcr.
Schoenwald. Aorduin. Rowland. &
Cunningham. 11)lJX). 'Ih:se complicated fam-
ily dynamics illustrate the compl('\ etiologi-
cal influences on bullying behaviors.
\'!ore()\er. il1\estigatiuns in other l'nun-
tries have fuund significant associations be-
lwe('n familial charactcristics and hully ing
heha\ior (Hadondini 8.: Smith. !lJ9fl: 13.1\\ crs.
Smith. & Binney. 199-l: 01\\e1ls. 19Xn. \9 lI31.
Several of these slUdies document the assllCia-
tion hetween par('nting sty les. family l'nviron-
men!. and hullying. hlr l'\amplc. based on
studies wilh Scandinavian youth. OlwellS
( Il)XO. 1993) concluded that fami lies of huys
who bullied were uflen descrihed as lacking
in warmth. IIsed physiL'al \'iolence within the
family. ami failed 10 monitorchildren's activi-
ties outside th(' SChOll!. Buwers and cull~agues
(IY9-l1 found surp'll1 forthis finding hut adlkd
thaI family memh~rs of bullics had high Ill'eds
lor pow('r. Families Ill' \iL'lims ha\'e heen found
10 he cuhesi\'e y.:t enll1esh.:d and mi~ht indud.:
all lI\'erclllltwlling nlllther (Bcrdondini &
Smith. I'N6: Ao\\ ~rs 1.'1 al.. 199-1- I.
 Increasingly more rc,carch i, bein~ con-
L1ucled on the role of ,ihlings in hullying, In a
study in which 375 rural middle ,choul ,tu-
dcnts were surveyed, Duncan f (lJl)9) reporteLi
that .f~~/r often bullied their siblings and ,~()';
of the sample with sihlings were frequently
ahused by their siblings, Closer examination
of these victimization experiences revealeJ thai
22'1r' were often hit or pusheLl, Sq, were often
heat up, and W/r were scared they woulLi he
hurt hadly, This stuLly also demonstrated the
cllncordance between participants' hullying
pecrs at schoo) and hullying siblings at homc:
5Fir of school bullies and 77';'< of school hull~­
victims also bullied their siblings,
Re,earch on hullying and \i.:timi/.ttion
in youth ,eem, to support a connection betwecn
family environment and bullying behaviors,
Families high in connic\, whll engage in hul-
lying and aggreS'ive hehavinrs in the home,
and who value aggre,sion as a functional
mcans to an end, are likely to have dlildrcn
who value the utility of bullying behaviors.
Given that these behaviors arc karneLi in the
home, it is likely that these behaviors will he
playcd out in the school setting, What school
conditions are likely to facilitate bullying hc-
havior,')
School Factors in the Bullying Dynamic
School climate, Scholll climate factors
are important in con,idering how studcnts'
helieh about violence, role modeling from
adults, and personality ,'haracleristics lead tu
bullying, If students attend Sl:hoo)., in which
hullying behaviors are accepted by adults and
pcers, it is plausihle that they will engag,' In
more of these behaviors. Thc social dimatc or
the school will intluence students' cngag.:mcnt
in aggressive hehaviors (Bakcr. ll)lJXl.
Although there are several studies lhat
haw examined school climate and student hc-
havior. there is less research availahle cxam-
ining bullying hehavior and school c1imatc, In
onc of the first sludi.:s to examine the pre\ a-
Ien<:e of bullying with thc FS .. Nansel ct al.
I ~()() I ) found that slUd.:nls who repon.:d hul-
l) ing others hall a signifi<:antly poorer per,'ep-
tion of school climate than slULlel1ls wh\1 wcre
\Ictim, of bullying or students who were both
hullies and victims Hpwc\er. a limitatilln llf
this stud~ is that SChll1l1 clullatl' \\ as llnl~ a
small com(Jt1nent of the ,'vcrall sune~ aLlmlll-
istered 10 lhe studCl1ls,
In one of thc llnl~ comprehensl\" slud-
ies IIf bullying among middle school "lUdcnls
wherc schools were a unit of analysis. rcsults
suggest that s,'hools \\ ith less bullying an: char-
acterized hy POSili\c disciplinary actions.
strong parental involvcment. and high aca-
demil' standards (M.I. 2()()2), In a slUdy l'llll-
ductcd by Kupermi Ill', Leadbeater. Emmons,
and Blall ( 1(97), middk school boy' \\ ho held
more po... itin: perceptions of school c1imatc
tended to ha\e re\\l'r externalizing heha\iors
(e,g. aggres"i\'c, delinqucnt beha\illr). hndings
from this slUdy suggest that student perceptions
of sdlOolclimate may imp,ll'l bo~s' heha\illral
alld emOlillnal adjustmcnt. In a 1'0110\\ -up sluLl~,
KupenniIll'. Leadhe;l\er, and BlallI2()() 1,1 fllund
that middle school ~ outh with high Ie\ els of
sdf-lTiticism L1iLl Ill.t show eXfhx'ICd inLTl'aSCS
in internalizing and l'\ternalizing prohlems
when thl') pl'r<:cived a positiw school dimatc,
indicating that schoul climate plays an impor-
tant role in till' psychosocial functioning of slU-
dents, Unfortunately, a paucity of research lln
hullying and schuol lIimate has hcen Clln-
dlll'tcLl, and \irtually no studll'S ha\c c\amincd
school c1imall' \ ariahk-s and bull~ ing.
Orpinas, Hunk', alld Staniszcwskl 12{Hl" I
aHempl tll fill this \ oid hy l'xamining the el-
k','ts of a bull~ prL'\ l'ntltlll program al th,' cl-
en1l'ntar~ schUlII Ie\ <:1. Kasen and culleagul's
fuund Ih,lt L1itlcrences in the social and emo-
tillllal featurcs of sdHlll!s \\ ere rel;lll'd to
changcs in bellavillral prohlems, anxiety and
depre,si \ I.' symptoms, and alclllllll use ill stu-
dcnts who rcmaincd in th<:Sl' schools (ner a 2-
year intcrval (Kasen, juhnson, & Cllhen, 19l)()1.
J 11 a morc recent sludy, Ka,sl'n and colleagucs
investigated long-term effects of school and
chilLi ch.u'a<:teristi,'s / Kasen, C(lh~n, &: BrooK.
199X I, High acadcmic ,Il'hic\ <:ment and aspi-
rations and a learnin~-lncuseLi selloul setting
adcd as detcrrents ag;uns(s,'hoo! dropllut and
deviant bella\ illr se\ cn ~ cars later in ~ oung
adulthood. Ho\\ c\ er. the deanh nf liter,llllrc in
thi ... area makes it difl,cult tn translate thcsc
findings to researdl on hullyin,!!. Prt:\ <:l1tlOIl
 Sch"u! Psychology Review, 20tH, V"lunw 12, No. {
and intervention programs need to consider the
school climate as a potential contributing fac-
tor in promoting or inhibiting bullying (see Left'
et aI.. 2003). Students need to be asked whether
they feel like they belong and are respected at
the school, how teadlers 'Uld administrators view
hullying. how reports of such behavior arc
handled. and how much the administr&ioll mod-
els and promotes respect for diversity in their
school. These factors play an instrumental role
in the manner in which students treat each other.
Researchers have asserted that best prac-
tice dictates that bullying prevention and in-
tervention programs involve all levels of the
social ecology including the student involved
in the bully/victim continuum. the school. the
family. and the community (Horne.
Bartolomucci. & Newman-Carlson. 2003:
Larson. Smith. & Furlong. 2002: Olweus. Lim-
ber & Mihalic. 1999: Swearer & Doll. 200 I).
Although this makes solid clinical and research
sense. what do we know about the relation-
ship between school climate and bullying?
How might the interaction between the student
involved in bullying and the school climate of
a particular school serve to encourage or in-
hibit bullying behaviors?
Teachers' attitudes. To develop a more
thorough conceptualization of the environ-
ments in which youth are educated. it is nec-
essary to increase our understanding of teach-
ers' altitudes and behaviors related to bullying
and vi-:timizatioll. In particular, teachers might
foster bullying hy failing to either promolc re-
spectful interactions among students or speak
out against teasing and other behaviors con-
sistent with bullying. Bullying is a major prob-
lem. yet only limited research has addressed
teachers' roles in bullying dynamics. Extant
studies have documented that teachers (a) tend
to report lower prevalence rates of bullying
than do students (e.g.. Stockdale.
Hangaduambo. Duys. Larson. & Sarvela.
2002). (b) do not always correctly identify
bullies (e.g .. Leff et al.. 1999). and (c) typi-
cally do not feel confident in their abilities to
deal with bullying (e.g.. Boulton. 1997). Teach-
ers might not only be unaware of the extent to
which bullying occurs in their schools. but
might he ul1\villing to intervene should they
17H
recognize instances of bullying. Therefore. in-
terventions should include an assessment of
teachers' altitudes toward bullying and how
they relate toward students. Education about
bullying for teachers is also necessary. In fact.
this training should extend to pre serv ice teach-
ers (Boulton. 1997). lunchroom supervisors
(Boulton. 1996). ,md school bus drivers. A ''train-
the-trainers" model of education can facilitate
the training of all school staft· (see Olweus. Lim-
ber. & Mihlic. J 999 for a description).
Community Factors: It Does Take a
Village to Reduce BuUying
Given the complexity surrounding bul-
lying behaviors. prevention and intervention
eff0l1s need to include not only the individua1.
peer group. family. and schoo1. but also the
community. Our cOlllmunities are rich environ-
ments comprising neighborhoods. churches.
after-school programs. recreational centers.li-
braries. and community centers. Often. schools
can partller with these groups and organiza-
tions in order to reduce bullying. Wraparound
services can help families utilize community
services. An example of effectively utilizing
community resources to reduce antisocial be-
havior is Illultisystemic treatment (MST:
Henggeler et al.. 1998).
Future Research Directions
Previous research paves the way for fu-
ture directions in bullying research. Where do
educators and researchers need to go from
here? Clearly. serious definitional and meth-
odological issues need to be addressed in or-
der to better assess bullying. The relationship
among bullying. sexual harassment. and racial
harassment needs to be resolved. Recently.
much attention in the popular press has been
given to gay. lesbian. bisexual. and
transgendered (GLBT) youth and bullying.
Bullying needs to be examined within special
populations such as GLBT youth. students in
special education. and ethnically diverse youth.
Are students bullied because they are differ-
ent? How might a school climate that respects
diversity inhibit bullying behaviors'? Is there a
relationship between acceptances of differ-
ences and a willingness to intervene in hully-

ing episodes? Less attention has been given to
how components of the social ecology interad
to foster or inhibit bullying. For example. only a
handful of studies examine the connection bc-
tween sibling bullying. school bullying. and peer
victimization. Even fewer studies evaluate the
school factors that interact with individual char-
acteristics, peer dynamics. and family experi-
ences of students. Finally, research needs to
evaluate bullying prevention and intervention
progran1S more completely. Are school-wide in-
terventions such as the Olweus Bullying Pre-
vention Program necessary'? Or. can schools
develop a system of universal. selected. and
targeted interventions (Sugai. Sprague. Horner.
& Walker. 2000) to effectively target bullying'!
Conclusion
A great deal about the bullying phenom-
enon has been learned in the past two decades:
however. much is still unknown about this
complex dynamic. The kno\'.ledge base has
been guided by international research efforts
and recent work conducted by American re-
searchers. Research consistently suggests that
bullying is a complex interaction that needs to
be studied using multivariate methods. Devel-
opmental differences must be taken into ac-
count as students progress through the school
system. These developmental issues are par-
ticularly important for effective bullying pre-
vention and intervention programming. Addi-
tionally. the nature and influence of the vari-
ous systems (i.e .. family. peer group. school)
that affect students' behavior must be exam-
ined. This special series in Schoo! Psychology
RCl'icl\' altempts to address some of these IS-
sues in bullying research.
References
Auslin. S.. & Joseph. S.! 14C)()1. A"essmcnl ofbully/vic·
tim problems in K to II year olus. British .Iour/1II1 ot
Edl/cariollol Psyclrology. 66. -+47-456.
Baker. J. A. I t 9lJ81. Are we missing Ihe foresl forthe Iree".'
Consid<:ring the social context of school vioknce. .Iol/r·
11,,1 ,,{Scho,,1 Ps.\'clr"logr. 36. 29--+4.
Bats'he. G. M.. & Knofr. H. M. ( IlJ'}41. Bullie.. anu their
victims: Understanding a pervasive prohlem in the
schools. School Ps.\'clrologr R''I'ieU'. 23. 1(,5-175.
BenrltT K. M.. & Li. A. K. F. I I4lJ5 I. Bully and ,' ....tim
prohlems in elementary schools and student" hclicr,
Rl:"t'drch un Schuol Bullying
ahout aggrcssion. CIII/<1dil1l1 Journal o{ School P.IT·
<ilOlo!{\. II. I :'i~-16:'i.
Bc·rdonuini. L.. & Smith. P. K.lllJ961. Cohe,ion anu powl.'r
in the families of children involved in bully/victim
prohkms at schoo!: An Italian replication . .Iourn,,1 0(
r,wlil,' Tlwrop,·. 18.99-102.
Berndl. T. J. ( 19K1l. The feature' anu etIe,ts of frienuship
in early ado!e":ellce. Child Dt'l'dol'lIIl!lIt. 53. 14-17-
1460.
BJnrk4\i'l. K.. LagerspetL. K.. & Kaukiainen. A.! l'Nll.
Dt. girls manipulate anu hoy, light": Devdopmental
trend, in regaru to direct and illuirect aggression. Ag-
grosi,',' Belrlll'i(l/; 18. K15-823.
Borg. M. (i. I I 991h The emotional reactions of schuul
hullies and Iheir ~ktinb. Educaliolllli Psycholog\·. 18.
4~.~-4-I3.
Bosworth. K .. Espelagc. D. L.. & Simnn. T. (1999).
Factor' assoc'iateu wilh bullying hehavior inmidule
,cho01 'tuuent, . .I1111r1wl o(Earlr Adolescellce. 19.
.141-3h2.
Buullun. 1\'1. .J. (19t)6). L.unchtime supervisor,' attitudes
towards playful fi~hling and ability to uitlerentiate
between playful and aggressi\'e fighting: An interven-
tion'tudy. British .Ioumlll ofEducatiOlwl P.nc/wlog.".
66. ~67-~~1.
Boulton. 1\-1. J.119 1)7). Tea,her,' views on hullying: Ddi-
nit ions. attitudes ami anility to cope. Briti.,h .lo/mllli
of Educ<ltiol/lIll's\'cholog\·. 67. 22~-2.n
Bowers. L.. Smilh. P. K .. & Binney. V. (1494!. Pcrceiwd
fanllly relallon"hips of hullie,. victim". and bully/\'ic-
tillls in middle childhood. .Iollf'llal o(Socialalld 1'('1'-
","al R,'llIlillllships. 11.215-2 1 2.
Bronfcnbn:nner. U. (19791. The ecolog.' o{hulllan derel·
"/1/111'111. Cambndge. MA: Harvard liniversity Pre",.
Bukowski. W. 1'.1 .. Sipp,)la. L. A .. & Newcomb. A. F.
(20()(Jl. Variatillns in patterns of attraction to same· anu
other-,c.\ peers during early aduk"ct'nce. f)"""lolmlclI-
wi Psnh"log\'. 36. 147-154.
Cum". R. 13 .. & Calms. B. D. 11994!. Liidilles IItld rish:
Pallman of.'olllh ill OUl' rill/f'. Cambriuge. Englanu:
Cambridge University Press.
Cairn,. R. 13.. l.eung. M. C. & Cairn'. B. D. 11995). So-
cialnet'.ork, over lime and 'pal', in adok"ence. In
L. J. ('n'ckett & A. C. Crouter IEus.l. Patlllmrs Ilmmgh
adolesCi'II"": IlIdil'idlllll del'cloplllelll ill '1'/lltioll 10
lociul "'"lexl.l. Tilt' Pelln Slarel."ries Oil child al/d
lil10Ie.ln'llI .1""1'101"'1"111 Ipp . .15-561. Hill'dale. N.I:
I.awrencc Erlhaul11.
Callagan. 5.. & Joseph. S. 11995). Self-l'l>ncept anu peer
vicrimi/ation al1\0ng scho\llchildre.l1. Pl'/'w1/Ialin' dlld
I,,'/i\'l<ll/al nUli'mleel. 18. 161-16~.
(,hamble". D. L.. 8.: Hollon. S. D. 11998 \. Detining em-
piric',llly supported them pie'. JO'IrIItII IIf CII/lSllllillg
(11111 Clillic,,1 P"·c·illllllgy. (Jr,. 7-1 X.
Cohen, J. tv1. 11977). Sources of peer group homogeneity.
SlIuolog." III Educalioll. 50. 227-241
Coil.'. J. D.. &: Dodge. K. A. ' I4'!S,. Aggre,sion and anri-
sodal behavior. In N. Eisenherg lEd. I. Halldbook 01
,'hild /'svchologl·. \.j,/. .I Ipp. 779-K6ll. Ncw York:
Wiley.
Cnllg. W. M. (199Kl. The r,-lation,hip among hullying.
vi,timizatiol1. depre"ion. anxiety. anu aggression in
379
 Sehuul P,ychulogy Review, 20tH. Vulunll' 31. No. -'
elementary school children. ['ersollalify alld Illdil'idua!
Dillen·IICl's. 2./. 11~-I.'O.
Craig. W. M .. & Pepler. D. J. f 19lJ7). Ohservations of bul-
lying and \'ictillllwtion in the schoolyard. Calladia"
.!OIII"IIliI O(SdIOO!I'sl'cllOlop·. 13.41-59.
Crick. N. R. 1199.~l. Relational aggres.sion: The role of
intent altrihulions. feelings of distress, and pnwoca-
tlonlype. Del'l'/"!,lIlolllllld l'\ych0l'lIrllologr. 7, ~ I~­
322.
Crick, N. R. 119<lh.l. The I,,'le ,)f relaliunal aggressiun, ,wert
agj!ression. anu prosocial hehavior in the predic"tion
of children's future social adjustment. Child De"dol'-
lIWrIt, f>7. 1317-1.117.
Crick. N. R.. ClSas. J. F.. & Ku, H. C. 119lJlJ)' Relational
and physical t('rms of peer "ictimililtion in presclllloi.
Dn·e!o!JllII·/Ilall'.n'l"iIIl!ogy. 35. 376-~R5.
Crick. N. R.. Casas. J. E. & Mosher. M. IllJlJ7). Rela-
tional and ,wen aggressiun in preschool. [)eve!ol'lIleJI-
la! ['svehlllo);". 33. 579-51\1\.
Crick. N. R.. & Dodgc. K. A. ( 1'1941. A review ilnd refor·
mulation of social infonnatilm-pnK:essing medwnisms
in chi Idren'" social adju,rment. PsrcholllgiUlI Billie·
[ill. 1/5.74-101.
Crick. N. R.. & Grotpeter. J. K. 11')LJ5). Relational aggres-
sion. gender. and ,"JCial·psychological adjustment.
Child [)eve/IIIIIIWrlt. M. 710-721.
Cricl.. N. R.. & Grotpeter. J. K. 119%1. Children's U·eal·
meJl1 by peers: Victims 01 relatil1nal and oven aggn,'s·
sion. D"I'd"I'IIIOII £Il1d P.'".vcho[JOlh"I,'gl". 8. .\07-.1S0.
Crick. N. R.. & Rosl.'. A. J. CWOI.I. Toward a gender·bal·
anced approach to the study 01 socIal-emotIonal de-
velopment: ;-\ look at rel:.tional aggression. In P. H.
Miller & E. K. SL·holnicl. IEds./. li)\l'lIrd a ji'lIIinisl
del'dol'lIIcllTillf'.\"vchology Ipp. 153-1 oS I. New York:
Routlcd!!e.
CsiksLclltmihalyi. M.. & Larsoll. R. 119S7i. The experi·
ence S<lmpling metl1(ld. Jill/mal IIrN<'I")'(ms 011.1 Mell'
1111 Di,,'oS<'. !7'. 526-536.
Dishion. T. 1.. french. D. c.. & Palterson. G. R. 1.ILJlJ51.
The dl.'veloplllenl and <'cology of antiSlx'ial hl.'ha\lol".
In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen IEds.l. LJi'l'cl0I'IIICI/IIl!
[J.\"l"ch"I'<ilh"l"gl". hi!. 2: Rllk. di.l"<Jrdel; olld IIdtll'ltl-
[ion (pr. 421-4711. N....... Yurk; John Wiley & Sons.
Dodge. K. A. 1 IlJ91 ). The qmctlll'l.' and lunetion of lelL'-
tive <md proactiw aggrl'ssion. In 0 . .1. Pepler & K. II.
Ruhin (Elk I. Thl' de\·e/"l'lIIenl £III/I Il"eall/WlI1 orchild·
/'"od aggression I1'1'.10 1·1 Ihi. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaulll.
Dodge. K. A.. & Coil,' . .r. D. ( ILJI;71. Social information
procl.'ssing factors in reactive and proactive aggression
in children', peer groups . .Il1l/rJwl IIr I'ersollalin' 011.1
Soc;,,! Psrcl",logy. 53. I 146-1151\.
Dun("an. R. D. I 19lJ9 I. Malireatllleni by parents anu peers:
The relationship hl.'lWl.'en child abuse. bully vietim-
ilation. and psy("ho!ogi("al distress. Child Malrrl'al·
IIII'll!• ./. 45·55,
Eccles. J. S.. Wigfield. A.. & Schiefele. U. (1998). MOli-
vali(ln to su("ceed. In N. Eisenherg IEd. I. Ham!"o"k "I'
child f'sl"cl",l"gl". ~~)I. 3lpr. 1017- 10961. New YIlrl.:
Wiley.
Elias. 1\-1 J.. & Zins. J. IEds.1. (20rn,. Bullying. peer ha-
nlSSlllent. and vlctimizalion in the schllols: The next
generation of pn,'vemion ISpecial issue I. ./0'''''11I1 or
/\I'I'/ied Schooll'n·,"ologl'. 1·5,
.lan
Endresen.1. M.. & Olweus. n. (2001 J. Self·repprted em-
pathy in Norw.:gian adplescenh: SL'X differences. age
trend,. and relationship to bullying. In A. C. Bohart.
C. Arthur. &. D. J. Stip.:k (Ed'.I. COII.\[ructi,',-,~ de-
sfruetil'" "elllll"o/": Iml'linl/ioll.\fi'riim,il\·. ,,·hool. al/(!
mciery Ipp. 147·1651. Waslllngton. DC: ATllerican Psy.
cholpgical AssoL·lation.
Ennen. S. T.. "'- Baulllan. K. E. ( 10941. 1111.' L'pntrihution
of innuenL'e and selectipn I" ad"lescellt peer group
l](lmogeneity: The case of adole,cl.'nt cigareLlt' slllllk-
ing. .lOll mol orPenollal,l.'" rI"d Social PSl'cllOlog.l'. '-"7.
653-oh.\
Fspelagl'. D. L.. Bosworth. K.. & Sinltlll. T. R. (200(1).
Examining the social conlext of hullylllg hehayiors in
early adl1lescence . ./0111'1/01 or C",mwdillg 011.1 /)/'Te!·
"1"11<'11/.78..116-.1.\3-
Espdage. D. L.. Bosworth. K.. & Sirnon, T. 120(J 1\. Shl1rt-
term stahillty and L'hange olhullying in middle scho,,1
students: An examination of demographic. psychllso,
cial. and environmental ("orrelate,. \'iolc'II('" & ~/'·lil//\.
1f>.411-41h.
Espelage. D. L.. 11011. M. K. 8: Henkel. R. R. 11f~1.\ I.
Examinatl\Hl (If pe"r group Cllntexlual I.'IleL·!s "n ag-
gressi\'e hehavior during early adolescence. Child
J)1'\·,'!of'I///'Ill. 7-1.105-220.
Farrington. D. 1'. 119 1) II. Chlldho"u aggression and adult
violenCl.': Early precnr,,,rs and later-Ii 1'<' I1UtCOllWS. In
D. J. Pepler &. K. II. Ruhlll IEds. J. 1111' dl'l"elol'lIll'lll
011.1 l/"el/!II1<'lIf or childhood rlgg/"".\.Ii"" I flP. 5 2l)).
lIillsdale. N.I: ErlhauTll.
Prey. K. S.. Hirs(hslein. M. K.. '" (iuao. B. A. f200ll!.
Sec(lnd Step: Pre\t'nting aggression hy prom'lting ''''
cial COTllpl.'tcnee. ./0111"1I11101' FI//o!itl//ol & H,-hlldoral
/)i.\III"'/('/'\. 8. Ill2-113.
Furlnng. M . .J.. M "rri son. G. 1\:1 .. '" CireiL J. L. 12003,.
Reaching an AIlll'IXan L·onSI.'IlSUs Reactions to the
special issu.: on school hullying. School P.n·chologl"
Rel·i..". 32. 456-470.
Garharino. J.. & Del.ara. E. (2002). AII,/ "onl\ call hllrl
-'(J,.ere,-: HUH' to "ro(ce[ ll£!O/C.H'ClI!S from hu/l-"int:.
hurassI1wnt. and emotimuJ! ,·io!cJJ('c. New York: The
Free Press.
Geffner. R.. & '-oring. M. T. I Eds.l. 12f1f1l I. Intel'\ention.
research ant! thenries lIf JlsydHlI(lgical maltrealrnent.
Irauma. and nonphysical aggres.,ion [Special issue].
Jourl/ol ,,/ ["1II0[iOl/(/1 A/I",\!'. 2111.1J.
Goldstein.!\. P. 11'1941. The e,·olog.'· ,,(aggressioll. Ne\\
York: PlenUTll Press.
GOrTnan·Smrth. D.. Tolan. P. H.. Zdli. A .. & Huesmann.
L. R.I I 99()), The relation offamily ftnlL"lIonlng til vio·
kilt"\? among Inner-city lIlinnrily youlhs. Journal of
F<llllilr Plve/wl"g.\'. 10. 115-lllJ.
Graham. S.. & Juvonen. J. ,2(W)21, Ethnicity. p,'l.'r harass·
ment. and adjnstment in middle school: An exploratory
or
study. J""m<ll Farl.'" Ad"ln'TIII"I'. 21. 17~·1 '19.
Hartup. W. W. I I'JX.1l. Peer j!fUUps. In P H. Mussen 1Se·
ries Eu.' & E. M. Hetheringtlln IVol. Ed. \. 1I1/1,dl"",~
ordlild 1'\Tc!rolog\ 14'" cu. ,. h,l. -/: S",·iali~llli,,". 1'1'1"-
sollt.dity. and ,')twiul den'fopI1Wl1t, New York: WIll'y.
H:lller. R. -' .. & (·arney. -'. V. ,1IJOO), When victims turn
aggressors: Faetnrs in the devl'1ol'ment of deadly
~chool violence.?, Pn~re,\.\i(l,wl Sduiol COll1rsdillg. -I,
lOS· J 12 .

Hcnggeler. S. \V.. Schoenw'lld. S. K.. Borduin. C 1\1.,
Rowlund. M. D.. & Cunninghum. P. B. (199)1).
Mllitisystell/ic trelltmelll o{allti.wcial behm'ior in chil-
dren iJlul adolescents. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hoover. .I. H .. Oliver. R.. & Hazier. R. J. (19921. Bully-
Ing: Perceptions of adolescent victims in the Midwest-
em USA. School PsycilOlogr In/emotional. 13. 5-16.
Home. A. 1\1 .. Bartolomucei_ C. L._ & Newman-Carlson.
D. i2(03). Bllllv "".l'1ers: A teach"':1 mall/lillj"r help-
illg hul/ie.l. l'ictims. alld l'rsllJllden. Champaign. II.:
Research Press.
Huesmann. L. R. (Ed. I. ( 19Y4 ,. Aggres.lil·e heh,lvior: Cllr-
relltll<'rJ/"'Cli,'es. New York: Plenum Press.
Juvonen. 1.. & Graham. S. (20nl). Peer hllrassmelll ill
s"/lOol: The pligh/ of the I'IIlw'mbie alld I'lctill/i~ed.
New York: Guilford Press.
Juvonen. J .. Nishina. A .. & Gruham. S. i20(1). Self-views
versus peer perceptions of victim staIns among early
adolescents. In J. Jnvonen & S. Graham IEds.1. P,'e,.
Iwra.lsmell/ ill sehool: 7111' plight ofrhe I'uillera"'" lilld
..ietillli::.ed (PP. 105-124). New York: Guilford.
Kaltiala- Heino. R.. Rimpela. M .. Mamunen. M .. Rimpela.
A.. & Rantanen. P. 119(9). Bullying. depression. and
suicidal ideation in Finnish udolescents: School snr-
vey. British Medinzl.loumal. 319. 34g-35I.
Kandel. D. B. i 197Rj. Homophily. selection. and so,:ial-
ization in adolesc...nt friendships. Amcricun J(llmwl of"
Sociology. 8ol. 427-4:'\6.
Kasen. S.. Cohen. P.. &: Brook. 1. S. 11998). Adolescent
school experiences and dropout. adolescent pregnancy.
and young adult d... viant behavior. Jot/rtI(/lo(AdoleI-
,'elll Res('(/11'11. 13.49-72.
Kasen. S.. Johnson. 1.. & Cohen. P. (1990). The impact of
school ...motlonal climate on studenl psychopathology.
Jot/mal ojAbnonllal Child P.'l'cllOlogy. 18. 165-177,
Kumpulaincn. K.. Rasanen. E.. 8: Puum. K. (20011. Psy-
c'hiatric disorders and the lise of menIal health st"rvic...s
among children involved in bullying. Aggr".lsil'l' Be-
'lal'io,. 27. 102-11 (1.
KlIpemlinc. G. P.. Leadbeater, B. 1.. Emmons. C. & Blan.
S. J. (1997). Perceived school climate and difficulties
in the social adjustment of middle school sludents.
Applied f)t'I'l'lo/II//('l/tal S";e,/('I'. I( 2). 76-8R.
KlIper1l1inc. G. P.. Leadbeater. B. 1.. & Blatt. S. 1. (20U]).
School social climate and individual differences in vul-
n...rability to psychopathology among middle school SIU-
dents. JOI/I'I1<11 ofSeilOol PsvcJlOlogy. 39. 141-159.
I.ane. D. A. (19891. Violent hi,tories: Bullying and crimi-
nality. In D. P. Tatlum & D. A, Lane (Eds.). HI/living
in schools (pp. 95-1(4). Stoke-on-Tr... nt. l'.K.:
Trentham Books.
Lmson. J .. Smith. D. C.. & Furlong. M. J. (2002l. Best
practices in school violence prevention. In A. Thonws
& J. Grimes tEds. I. B('.\t practil't'.I' in school p.lvcJwl-
og\'-/V(pp. 1081-10971. Bethesda. MD: Nalwnal Av
sociation of School Psychologists.
LetT, S. S.. Kupersmidt. J. B.. Pattersou. C 1.. & Power.
T. J. (19Y9). Faclors influencing teacher identification
of peer bullies and victims. School Psvchologl' Re"i/'Il;
2/1,505-517
LetT. S. 5., Power. l' .I., Costigan. l' E .. & Man/. P. H.
(2003). Assessing the climate of th... playground and
ReSl'ilrch on School Bullving
lunchrollm: Implications for bullying prevention pro-
gramming. School P.'.I'chologv Rel'in.., .C, 41 >1-430.
LefT. S. S.. Power. l' J.• Man/, P. H.. Costigan. 1'. E.. &
Nabors, L. A. (200 I). School-ha,ed aggression pre-
vention programs for young cbildr... n: Current sla(Us
and implications for violence prevention. School Poll"
ch"log." Rai",... 30. 3+l-Yi_'.
Leslie. A. M. (1987). Pr...tense and r...presentation: The
origins of "theory of mind." P.I·I'c!wlogiml Rn'iI'\I'. 'N.
412-426.
Lenng. M. C. ( 19941. Sodal cognition and so<.'iai netllit'rb
of Chin...s... school children in Hong Kong. Dis.li'l'ta-
tion Ab.\tl'llet.\ IllIematimli/l. 54 t 12-B I.
Limber. S. P.. Cummingham. P. Florx. v., h·ey. J., Na-
tion. M .• (,hai. S.. & Melton, G. (1'197. JuneOulYJ.
Bllllring Il//long .Icho(ll childrcn: Pr,·/iminanjinding.,
tinm II .1c!lOol-ba.w·d illl/'ll'enrirml'mgl'llm. Paper pre-
sented at the Fifth International Family Violence Re-
search Conference. Durham. NH.
Limber, S. P.. & Small. 1\1. A. (2003). Laws and p(,licles
to address bullying in U.S. s(·hools. School Psychol-
og\ Rel·in.: 32. 445-455.
Loeber. R.. & Dj,hion. T. (19:\.' J. Early pr...dic(ors of male
delinlluency: A review. ('.I\ch"l(lgimIBlllletin. W. 6R-
'19.
Lueh r. R.. & Stouthamer-Loeb<'I. M. (19l)~). Develop-
m nt of juvenile aggr...ssion and vioil'nc'e: Some com-
mon Illisconceptions and contro\·ersies. Americlln Psr-
("hologi.\f. 53, 242-259.
Lung . .J. 0 .. & Pellegrini. A. D. i2tXl31. SlUdying change
in dominance and bullying with linear mixed models.
Sch"ol ('sychol(lg.l· N'Ti,,": 32. 401-417.
Ma. X. (20021. Bullying in middk school: Individual and
sdl\)(,lc'haracterislics of victims and offenders. School
E(li:f'/it'f'l/t'.\S mill School///l/Jf'(JI·/,lIIel1l. 13. 6.'-R9.
Milkr. 1'.. & Eisenberg. N. (1')8>11. The relation of empa-
th) to aggrt"ssil'e and externali/ll1g/antis(ll'i,il beha\-
ior. P.wclwlogical Bullerin. 103. 324-344.
Moffitt. T. E. (191)3). Adol ...scent·limited and life-cour,e-
pnsistent anti-s()\.·ial beha\ ior: A developmental lax-
onomy.l'Sl'chologiwl R{'I'i('I\', IUU. 674-701.
Moran. 5 .. Smilh. P. K.. Thompson. D.. & Whitney. I.
(I CJCJJI. Ethnic diITerelll''''s in ... xpericlKes of hullying:
Asian and white children. Brirish .Iolll'lllli (II' Educa-
tional Psrcholog\'. 1l3. 431-440.
Nansd. T. R.. Overpeck. M .. Pilla. R. S .. Ruan. W. 1..
Simons-Morton. B.. & St·heidr. P. ,20111 J. Bullying
hehaviors .Ul1t1llg LIS youth: I'reval ...nc... and associa-
tion iii ith psychosocial adjustment. JOUl'llol of the
AmericlllI Medical ;\'.lo('l,lIi(ln. 285. 2()<J4-21 00.
Nansel. T. R.. Cherp...ck. M. D.. Haynie. D. 1... Ruan. 1..
& Sc·heidt. P. C t2003 J. Relationships between bully-
IIlg and violence among U.S. youth. A,d/iI'es o{Pedi-
,uric lind Ad"II'Il'/'fl/ it-fed;";I1/'. 157, .'4S-3.'i3.
Neary. A .. & Jos...ph. S. 119941. Peer victimization and its
relationship to self-concept and depression among
schoolgirls. PI'I'I(llIalin' alld IlIdi ..idllal f)iJj'en'lIc,'s. 16.
IS3-186.
O ... sterman. K.. Bjoerkll\ist. K.. Lagerspetz. K. M. J.
Kallkiain... n. A .. Landau. S. 10.. fraczek. A. et al. (199SI.
Cross-cultural ...vid"'llC" of female indirect aggression.
Aggressil'l' Behm·io,. 2ol. 1-8.
361
St 11001 P.,ycholugy Rl'Vlt'W, 200l, Volunw \2. Nu. I
Olweus. D. (l<Jn). I'ersonalily anLl aggre.,."on. In J. K.
Cole & D. D. Jensen I ELls. I. NehtiJ.\/'a Sl'fllflosillfll Oil
moril'l1tiolllpp. 261-3211. Unwin: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Olweus. D. Ilyxm. Familial and Temperamental delenni-
nams of aggressive hehavior in adolescent boys: A
causal analysis. [)",·,'loIJm,'IIrl1/ /'.\·rl'/i%gr, 16. !J+l-
660.
Olwcus. D. I 19X9 L The OI"'i'II.\ Bul/v/Vi/'rim (jl/<,stioll-
,wire [Mimeol. HEMlL-,entereL Univesitelet 1 Bergen.
Norway.
Olv.'eu,. D. IIll93 L Bully/victim problem, :un'Hlg school·
children: Long-term con,e'luences and an effective
intervention program. In S. Hodgins (Ed.>. .fl;fel//o/ diS-
order alld ,.,.illll' 11'1'. .117-.149). ThousanLl Oab, CA:
Sage Publication-.
Olweus. D. 119'!4L Bullying at school: Long-term "ut-
comes for the victims and an dreclive sl'llOol-based
intervenllon program. In L R. HuesJl1ann I Ed.l. Ag·
grl'nil'/'Iwh,"'ior: Cllrrl'lIll,,'rsl,.·,-,i,·,·.1 Ipp. '17·130L
New York: Plenum.
01\\'<'11'>. D.119lJ61. The [<I'I'i,l/'dOIIl·ell.l HIIl/vAk/im QIII'.I'
liollllaire [1\1ime"1. HElIHL-senkreL \ [ni\esitelel J
Bergen, Norway.
Olweu,. D.. & Endresen. L M, 11991{ I. The importance of
,e\-of-,timulus object: Age lrends and sex dillerenee,
in empathic responsiveness. Social LI"I'cloplIlcnl. 7.
370-3XX.
Olweus. D.. Limber. S.. & Mihalic S. i 19991. Blllcpmlls
.!(H"l'ioklll"r prn'{'l1rilltl: Ilulh'ing p,.rl"{~Il{iutll,,"Ogr(Jm.
BoulLler, co: Institute ofBehavimal Science. Regent>
of Ihc Univer,iry of Colorado.
Orpinas. P" !lome, A. M" & Staniszewski. D. 120(3).
S,'ho(ll hullyll1g: Chan!!ing the prllhlem hy changing
rhe schooL Schuull'sycilOlugl' R('\'icll~ 32. 431-444.
Pellegrini. A. D. (2002). Bullying and victimization in
middle sdH"": A dllminance relations per,pecti\e.
LdllcatlOlltll P,-,,<,lroiogisl. 37. 151-lhJ.
Pellegrini, A. D" & Banini. M. I 2(K)I). D(>minance in early
adolescent hoy,: Anlliative and aggre'>sive dimensinn,
and p""ible fun,·tioll>, Merrill-Pollllt'!' QlltJI'II'f"l\', ·17.
142-lli3.
Pcllegrini. A, D., & Long. J. I 2(KJ21. A longiludinal "udy
of bullying. donllnauce. and victimization during the
transition from primary III seconLlary schooL Britislr
jnlll'lllli ut D"""lul",ll'nlal Ps\'clwlog\', ]n, 25Y· 2XO
Rigby. K. (Il}<)hl, UIII/ring ill 'clrools: /(/111 ,,-/rllt rn do
,d1l/11/ il. Camherwcll. Vic-loria, Auslral;a: The Austra-
lian Council for Educational Research.
Rigby. K .. & SIe,'. P. I I<J99). SuiCiLlal iLleal i(ln among aLlI)'
Ieseenl scho(ll dlilLlren. m\olvement 111 hully-victilll
prohlems. amI percei\eLl soelal suppon. SlIicidc lind
Lili" nl1",·tlle/lillg Belrm·i.,,: 24. 119- 1,\0.
Rivers, I., & Smilh. P. K. I. 19941. Types "I' hullying he·
havior and their correlates. Agg,~·s.\i1"l· Rehari(/!: 2{).
359-3hX.
R"dkin, P. C. Fanner. T \V" Pearl. R" & Van Acker. R.
(20001. H<,terngen<,iry "I' popular hny,: AnliM)ci,,1 and
pro,ocialeonfigurations. D,w'lul'",enlOl Psvclrologv.
36, 14-24.
Rodkm. 1'. C.. & H"dges. E, V. E. 12m3). Bullies and \ic-
tilll~ in lh~ peer ~{:ology: Four llllc~tion:-; for Sl.."hO(ll
service provider, and so.'ial d.:velol'm,'nl rese,u·ch.
School P"ychology ReI' iew. 32, 384--WO.
Roland. E, II <JxtJ I. A system oriented ,trategy against hul-
lying. In E. Roland & E. Munthe I Eds.I. Bldlrillg: All
illternallO/wl p,'rspectil'i' 11'1'. 143·15/1. London:
David Fulton Publisher,.
ROlh. D, A.. Coil's. M. E.. & Heimber~. R. G. 12002J, The
relationship belween meJl1orr.:s for childhood teasing
and anxiety ,lI1d ,kl'ression in adullhood. jot/rnaillf
Al!.lil'll' Disor"('f,I, 16, 1·'19-164.
Ruhln. K. H.. Bukowski. W.. & Parker. J. G. (llJ9X). Peer
inreraction,>, relation,hips, and groups, In W, Damon
I. Serres Ed.) & N. Ejseoberg IVnl. Ed.l. HOlldbouk 01
child p.\reliolllgv: 1;,/ 3. SoclIl/, ,·II/oriollal. ollil fl/'/"
sOllolill ".'leloIJIII'·//1 (5 n, cd.) (PP, 779-X(2). I\:,~w Y,'rk:
Wiley.
Ryan. ,1\. M, 1200 I). The peer ~mup a., a C1lnr,'XI tor Ihe
developmenl of ynung adnle,..'enr llltlli\ation and
achievement. Child 1Jel'd0I'/lII'Il/. 72. 11.\5-1150.
Rys. G. S.. & Bear. G. G. (llJ<J7i. Relational aggres>i"n
and peer relations: Gender and developmental issnes.
. \ -ferrill·Pallllcr Qut/rla"'. 4}, 'K7-IO/).
Salmivalli, C, Lagerspeu. K.. Hjnrkqvis\, K.. Ostem1<ln.
K .. 8: Kaukiainen. A. I 19<)61. Bullying as a group pro·
cess: Participant role, and their rel'llion, 10 sOl:ial sta-
IUS within Ihe group. AXgrt'.I"i1., Rellol'illr, 22, 1-15.
Sal mOil. G.. James. A.. CaSSidy, E. L. & ]avaloye,. M. A.
(20(KII. Bullying a r.'view: Presentations 10 an adok;,-
cent psychialric service and within a ,chool for emo-
Iionally and behaviour'lily disllirhed children. Clilli·
clil Child P.lreliolllgv llllil fI.lreltitllrr. 5. 563-579,
School Psychology Imemational. t2(XKII. Special i.l,IIII':
Bt/llil''' tllld ,'ll"1i//ls. 2/111. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
PuhlicalJons.
Schwanz, D.. Dodge. K, A.. Petti\' G. S., & Bates. J, E.
(I l),)71. The early sOL'ialll.ati,)Il of agwessive vidim,>
of bullying, Cllild D"''''"I'IIII'/II. 1Jt'., 665-675.
Slee. P. T. (19941. Snuational anLl imerpeNmal correlates
of anxlely as"lCiated with peer vic'llmilalion. Child
P.lyellialn alld flrill/all Dndolll/l"Ilt, 25.97·107,
Slee, 1'. T. I 1<)<15). Peer vil'lin1J7ation and ils relationship to
,k'pressi,'n among . \usrralian prim,u)' SdllH11 students.
PenOlru!in' & ""lh'iduul/Jitl'·rl'lI<,<,.I. 18. 57·h2.
Smith. p, K .. 8:: Brian, P. I'. I Ed,. I. 12(00). Bullying in thl'
Selro(\ls. Aggr".\.li,'t' Bel"/I'i"r. 26( II,
Smilh. P. K .. Madsen. K. C.. & MlloLly. .I. C.11999). Whal
cause, the age dedine in repons of being hullied al
Sdlllill" T"ward a d<'\'e!opmental analysis llf ri,b of
being bullied. Edllcational Rc,carclr, 41, 207-285.
Smith. P. K.. & Sharp. S. I J <)9-11. S<"1'(1,,1 hllihillg: hwglm
<llId "enp",li,'I'''. L"ndon: Routledge.
SUUlh. P. K. & Tholllp"m, D. ( 1')91 ), PraetiCIII "p"m"chl'.1
ro h/ll/vil/g. L.ondon: David Fulilln.
Solherg. 1\1. E.. & Olwcus, D. 120m I. Prelalenc<, e'lillla·
liollllf '>('h",,1 bullying wilh Ihe Olwcus Bully/Vinilll
que"tlonnaire. Aggressin' /Jt:hto"iur. 21.), 239-26S.
Stllckdale. M. S.. Hangaduaillbo. S.. Duys. D.. Larson.
K" & SllI·\,e1a. P D. (2(XI21. Rural elemenl:uj studcnts',
parents'. anLllcachers' perl't~plions of bullying, Am,.,.i-
1'11/1 ./o/lrn,,1 o,-,"'"/rh BI'Ir/{\'I"I~ 2n, 266-277.
Sugai. G.. Spragu<'. J. R.. Hilmer. R. H.. & Walker. H. t\1.
120001, Prevellling school \'iol<'lll'e: The usc of ollkV'
 R""('<lich on School Bullying

discipline referrals to assess ,mdmonitor school-wide
discipline intervel1liom. JOl/mal o( Emlltiol/al tllle!
Behavioral Disorders. 8.9..\·102.
Sutton. 1.. Smith. P. K .. & Swettenham. J. II ')l)9l. Bully-
ing ,u1<I"theory of mind": Anitiquc of the "sodal skills
deficit" view of anti-social behaviour. Sodal Dn'el·
IIpmem.8. 117-127.
Swearer. S. M. (2001l. Bully Survey-Youth version
rBSY l. Unput>lished manuscript. University of Nc-
braska-Li ncoln.
Swearer. S. M.. & Doll. B. 120tlll. Bullying 111 schools:
An ecological framework. '/lll/l'lwl o/Emotiol/al 041>1/.\1'.
2.7-2-'.
Swearer, S. M.. Song. S. Y. Cary. P. 1'.. Eagle. J. W.. &
Mickdson. W. T. (20DI l, Psyc'hosllcial correlates in
t>ullying and vi<.:timization: The rel,ltionship t>etween
depression. anxiety. and bully/vi<:tim status. Jill/mal
of Emotiollal AbllSe. 2, '.15-121.
Thornberry. T. P. (1994), Violem(am;lie.1 alld \'oll1h \·io..
1"lIce (Oftie.: of Juvenile Justl<.:e and Delinquency Pre-
vention, Fa<.:t Sheet No. 21l. Washington. DC: Depan-
ment of Justice.
Tolan. P. H.. Cromwell. R. E.. & Braswell. M.II'-JK61. Tlk'
applic;llillnof family therapy to juvenile delinquency
A criti<.:al rel'iew of the literature. Falml." I'm,·n.\', 15,
61'1-64'1.
U.S. Dcpanmel1l 01" Hcalrh and Human Services. \ 200 II.
Iii/II" \'iol<'ll<'''': A I"t'l'0n or Ilu' Surge()/I Gelleral.
Ro<:kville. MD: U.S. Department of Health and Hu-
man Services. Center. for Disca,,, Control and Pre-
vention. Nation,lI Center for Injury Prewntion and
Contro!: Substance Abuse and Mentaillealth St'rvices
Adminisuation. Center for Mental Health Services: and
National Institutes of Health. National In~lltule of
Mental Health.
VossekuiL B.. Fein. R. A.. Reddy. 1\1.. BOlllm. R.. &
Mod/elcski. W. 12002\. The filllli r"port wlrl/illdillg\
,,(rh,' Sali' School Initiw;\,,: ImplicarilllJ.,}iJl' Ih" [,n'-
rell/ion or"I"",1 al/acks 1/1 fhe United S/{lle.,·. Wash-
ington. DC: U.S. Secret S('rvicc and U.S. Departmenl
of Education.
Williams. K.. Chambers. M.. Logan. S.. & Robinson. D,
( 19961. Asso<.:iation of c:ommO!1 health symptoms with
buJJying in primary school children. Brifi"h Medical
.II1/II"IUlI. 313.17-19.

Dorothy L. Espelagc. Ph.D.. is an Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology in the

Department of Educational Psychology at the University of lIlinois. Urbana-Champaign.
She earned her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology frllm Indiana University in 1997. She has
conducted research on bullying for the last seven year,. As a result. she presents regularly
at national conferences and is author on over 30 professional publications. She is on the
editorial board for Journal (J( Counseling and Dl'l'elul'lIll'lll. She has presented hundreds
of workshops and in-service training seminars for teachers. administrators. counselors.
and social workers across the U.S. Her research focuses on transl'lling empirical findings
into prevention and intervention programming. Dr. Espelage has appeared on many televi-
sion news and talk shows. including The Today ShoH'. CNN. CBS EI'Cllillg Neil'S. and The
Oprah Wi/lire.\' Shol1' and has been yUllted in the natiunal print press. incluJing Timc Maga-
"iI/f. USA Toda.\'. lmd Peoplc magazine.

Susan M. Swearer. Ph.D .. is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in the Depan-

ment of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She eamed her
Ph.D. in School Psychology from The University of Texas at Austin in 1997. She has
conducted research on the relationship between depression and anxiely and externalizing
problems (with a specific emphasis on bullying) in children and adolescents f,)r the past
decade. Dr. Swearer regularly presents at national conferences and conducts workshops
on bullying and victimization in sehoul-aged youth. She writes regularly on the topic of
bullying and is on the editorial review boards for Education lind Treat/l/ell/ 11 Children.
School Ps.\'c!wlogv QUlIrterly. and School Psychology Rl'I'iell'. Her research project on
bullying. "Target bullying: Ecologically-based prevention and intervention for schools"
teaches school personnel how to collect ecologically valid data on hullying and use those
dala to guide prevention and intervention efforts.

38j