Bullying perpetration and victimization was brought to the attention of U.S.

researchers
by Dan Olweus, who spearheaded a nationwide Scandinavian campaign against
bullying. Referring to bullies as whipping boys in the 1970s, Olweus set forth the
following definition of bullying that continued to be consistently used into the early
2000s: A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly
and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more students (Olweus, 1993,
p. 318). It often involves an imbalance of strength and power between the bully and
the target and is repetitive in nature. Children and adolescents may experience isolated
acts of aggression, but children who have been bullied live with the ongoing fear of the
recurring abuse from the bully, which is usually more damaging than an isolated and
unpredicted aggressive event. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, scholars have
recognized that bullying can be verbal, physical, and social in nature. Smith and Sharp
noted: A student is being bullied or picked on when another student says nasty and
unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is hit, kicked,
threatened, locked inside a room, sent nasty notes, and when no one ever talks to him
(Sharp & Smith, 1991, p.1).

PREVALENCE
Bullying is thought to be one of the most prevalent types of school violence. Students
assume roles, including bully, victim, bully/victim, and bystander. Estimates in the early
2000s suggest that nearly 30% of American students are involved in bullying in one of
these capacities (Nansel et al., 2001). Specifically, findings from this nationally
representative sample indicated that among sixth through tenth graders, 13% had
bullied others (bullies), 11% had been bullied (victims), and 6% had both bullied others
and been bullied (bully-victims). Worldwide incidence rates for bullying victimization in
school-aged youth range from 10% of secondary students through 27% of middle school
students who report being bullied often (Whitney & Smith, 1993). When peer, teacher,
and self-reports were used to classify a sample of sixth graders (N = 1,985), the authors
found 7% of the sample were bullies, 9% were victims, and 6% were bully-victims
(Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003).
The delineation of these bully and bully-victim groups has direct implications for
prevention and intervention efforts because these subgroups not only display different
patterns of aggression, but they also have different emotional and psychological
profiles. First, bullies exhibit a more goal-oriented aggression, entailing more control and
planning. In contrast, bully-victims tend to display a more impulsive aggression with
concurrent poor emotional and behavioral regulation, which is perceived as particularly
aversive by their peers and contributes to their own victimization (Schwartz, Proctor, &
Chien, 2001). Second, bully-victims are at-risk for greater social maladjustment than
bullies and have been found to experience victimization in other domains, including
childhood sexual abuse and sexual harassment (Holt & Espelage, 2005).

RISKS FOR BECOMING A BULLY, VICTIM, OR BULLY-VICTIM

Aggression, like other forms of behavior, is often conceptualized as emerging, being
maintained, and modified as a result of a child's personality characteristics and the
interactions between these characteristics and social contexts (e.g., peers, family,
schools). This perspective has been called a social-ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner,
1979) and includes microsystems, which contains structures with which the child or
adolescent has direct contact, including parents, siblings, peers, and schools. The
mesosysytem comprises the interrelations among microsystems, such as an
adolescent's family and peers. For example, attachment to one's parents might
contribute to a willingness to connect with a teacher at school. The social-ecological
framework has been extended to predictive models of bullying victimization and
perpetration, which are discussed briefly next.

Bullying can be verbal,

physical, and social in nature.GIDEON MENDEL/CORBIS.
Individual Risk Factors. Certain individual characteristics heighten one's risk for
being victimized or perpetrators. In demographic terms, boys are more often victimized
and perpetrators than girls (Espelage & Holt, 2001), although this depends somewhat
on the form of victimization; whereas boys are more likely to experience physical
bullying victimization (e.g., being hit), girls are more likely to be targets of indirect
victimization (e.g., social exclusion). In one of the few studies addressing the influence
of race on bullying, Black students reported less victimization than White or Hispanic
youth (Nansel et al., 2001). Juvonen and colleagues (2003) found that Black middleschool youth were more likely to be categorized as bullies and bully-victims than White
students. Another study found that Hispanic students reported somewhat more bullying
than Black and White youth (Nansel et al., 2001).
A wide range of personality characteristics has been associated with either pro-social
behaviors or bullying victimization/perpetration. First, empathy is consistently
negatively associated with aggression and positively associated with prosocial skills

(Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). The inverse correlation between aggression and empathy
was stronger in studies that focused on the emotional component of empathy rather
than the cognitive aspects of empathy. This might be especially relevant in the case of
bullying in which the aggressors might be able to understand others' emotional states
without sharing the victims' feelings. Bullies' careful selection of victims who are
vulnerable and disliked by their peers reflects good perspective-taking. However, the
fact that they use violence to achieve their goals, disregarding the pain that they inflict
on their victims suggests that perspective-taking (e.g., cognitive empathy) does little to
inhibit aggression.
Second, a positive attitude toward bullying is often a strong predictor of bullying
perpetration. Espelage and colleagues found that a positive attitude toward bullying
partially mediated the relation between empathic concern and bullying for males, and
the relation between perspective-taking and bullying for both males and females
(Espelage, Mebane, & Adams, 2003). From a slightly different angle, Boulton and
colleagues (2002) investigated children's general attitudes toward bullying and their
impact on bullying. Investigators found significant positive correlations between proattitudes and self-reported involvement in bullying (Boulton, Trueman, & Flemington,
2002).
Contextual Influences. Family, peer, and school contexts can exert positive or
negative influences on bullying involvement. With respect to the family context, bullies
often report that their parents are authoritarian, condone fighting back, use physical
punishment, lack warmth, and display indifference to their children (Baldry & Farrington,
2000). In addition, children who have insecure, anxious-avoidant, or anxious-resistant
attachments when 18 months old were more likely than children with secure
attachments to become involved in bullying at ages 4 and 5 (Troy & Sroufe, 1987).
Similarly, middle school students classified as bullies and bully-victims indicated
receiving substantially less social support from parents than students in the uninvolved
group (Holt & Espelage, 2005). McFadyen-Ketchum and colleagues (1996) found
aggressive children who experienced affectionate mother-child relationships showed
significant decreases in aggressive-disruptive behaviors over time.
The peer context is another salient contributor to bullying behaviors. Several theories
dominate the literature, including the homophily hypothesis, attraction theory, and
dominance theory (for review, see Espelage, Wasserman, & Fleisher, 2007). According
to the homophily hypothesis, adolescent peer group members tend to have similar
levels of aggression. In addition, peer group bullying is predictive of individual youths'
bullying behaviors over time, even after controlling for baseline levels of bullying, a
finding that holds true for both males and females (Espelage, Holt, & Henkel, 2003).
This might in part be due to deviancy training, a process by which values supportive of
aggression are fostered. Peer groups can also have a positive influence on youth.
Further, peers can promote positive social functioning among youth; adolescents with

low levels of prosocial behaviors in sixth grade relative to their friends demonstrated
improved prosocial behaviors at the end of eighth grade (Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997).

CLASSROOM AND SCHOOL FACTORS

One of the most salient and influential environments for children is the school (Eccles et
al., 1993). A tremendous amount of research has tied schooling to both academic and
personal outcomes. School contextual factors have been linked to children's mental
health, achievement, self-concept, and ability to form social relationships.
Understanding the school environment is an essential part of understanding a child's
behavior. In addition, educators have long seen the classroom as having an important
impact on children's well being. If a classroom does not meet the needs of a child,
negative outcomes can occur and the child can be put at-risk for academic and social
difficulties (Eccles et al., 1993).
Students involved in bullying reported more negative views of their school environment
and positive school climate has been found to be vital to reducing bullying behaviors.
Classroom practices and teachers' attitudes are also salient components of school
climate that contribute to bullying prevalence. Aggression varies from classroom to
classroom, and in some classrooms aggression appears to be supported. Bullying tends
to be less prevalent in classrooms in which most children are included in activities,
teachers display warmth and responsiveness to children, teachers respond quickly and
effectively to bullying incidents (Newman, Murray, & Lussier, 2001), and parents are
aware of their children's peers relationships (Olweus, 1993). It is well accepted that
when school personnel tolerate, ignore, or dismiss bullying behaviors, they implicitly
convey messages that students internalize. Conversely, if staff members hold antibullying attitudes and translate these attitudes into behaviors, the school culture
becomes less tolerant of bullying.
Kasen and colleagues' 1994 study is perhaps the most comprehensive examination of
the impact of school climate on changes in verbal and physical aggression, anger, and
school problem indices. In this study, 500 children (and their mothers) across 250
schools were surveyed at the age of 13.5 and 16 years across a two-and-a-half year
interval. A 45-item school climate survey included multiple scales assessing social and
emotional features of the school environment, including a conflict scale (classroom
control, teacher-student conflict), learning focus scale, social facilitation scale, and
student authority scale (student has a say in politics and planning) as predictors.
Outcome measures included a wide range of scales, including school problems,
deviance, rebelliousness, anger, physical and verbal aggression, and bullying. School
context can influence engagement in bullying and more positive social interactions.
Results found that students in high-conflict schools had an increase in verbal and
physical aggression, after controlling for baseline aggression. In contrast, attendance at

schools that emphasized learning resulted in a decrease in aggression and other schoolrelated problems. Of particular interest was the finding that schools high in informal
relations had increases in bullying perpetration over the two-and-a-half year interval,
and schools with high conflict and high informality combined had the highest increase in
bullying over time.

RENEE'S STORY
As a high school mathematics teacher I have regretfully witnessed many bullying
situations. It is of particular concern to me, because it can have such a profound impact
on classroom performance. I am reminded of a student, Renee (pseudonym), that I
recently had in one of my classes. Renee's story reflects many of the points raised in
Espelage's entry on bullying.
As Espelage defined bullying in this chapter, two ideas emerged that are reflected in
Renee's story. One was the idea that bulling is repeated over time, and often is not just
a one time occurrence. The second idea is that bullying is not always a physical act; it
also occurs via social interactions and dialogs between students. Both of these were
apparent in the case of Renee. Renee was a student of mine in a freshman algebra
class. She was in a unique situation because she was a sophomore. She had transferred
from a different school and she was lacking her required algebra credit, so she was the
only sophomore in the algebra class. Initially this did not seem to be a problem for
Renee. She was a very happy and sociable student. She was friendly and would talk
with everyone and she would laugh often. After several weeks it appeared she was
developing some friendships. She was also an academically strong student; during class
she was focused on the task at hand and she worked well with her classmates.
As the year progressed, there was a group of four boys that would commonly joke
around with Renee. They would tease her by pretending that one of their group was
dating her. They would say things like, where are the two of you going tonight? or is
your old boyfriend mad you left him for me? These conversations usually occurred in
the transition between classes and when I heard these comments, I quickly redirected
the students to the tasks of the day. Renee would usually laugh at the group of boys and
always seemed to have a quick-witted response. From my vantage point it genuinely
seemed like a group of friends having fun and enjoying each others' company.
My feelings about the situation changed when I noticed Renee missing several class
sessions. She did not turn in her homework, and when she did attend class she did not
perform as well as she had previously. I investigated her poor performance and why she
had been missing class, and I found that the boys were the reason. Renee told me she
had not been coming to class because she did not want deal with the groups of boys
teasing her. Sometimes bullying is difficult for an outsider to detect. It is difficult to

determine if kids are having good natured fun, or if someone is being victimized. As a
teacher the best way I have seen to deal with these hard to distinguish situations is to
build strong relationships with the students. The better you know the student the easier
it will be to determine if they are actually being victimized. In Renee's case I did not see
her as a victim of bullying initially, but her missing class and turning in poor work were
immediate red flags.
After I realized that Renee was a victim of bullying by a peer group, I immediately
confronted the four boys, called their parents, and notified the assistant principal of the
situation. Renee began coming back to class and the boys seem more respectful toward
her, but, on occasion, they would make the same type of comments to her, usually in
the hallway before class so I was not aware. It was difficult to change the nature of the
boys' interactions with Renee. On one occasion, I was working with a group of students
and one of the boys made some remarks to Renee. I was unaware of the initial
exchange, but I quickly noticed Renee aggressively react to their comments. She
became extremely agitated and began yelling explicatives at the boys. As Espelage
mentioned in this chapter, victims of bullying are often impulsive and lack behavior
regulation, which can been seen in Renee's reactions.
The bullying between Renee and the boys was not immediately corrected but after time,
consistent monitoring of interactions, parent conferences, and consultation with the
assistant principal, the students developed a respectful relationship. Renee's
performance returned to the level I had come to expect from her and the boys
developed a more mature relationship with their classmate.
The bullying situation with Renee helped remind me, as a classroom teacher, that
bullying is not always obvious, and that teachers have to know their students well to
understand if bullying is occurring. As a teacher, it also is important to realize that
bullying can profoundly influence a student's performance and achievement.
Anthony Durr

Bullies and Victims Across the Lifespan

Victims, bullies, and bully-victims often report adverse psychological effects and poor
school adjustment as a result of their involvement in bullying. For example, targets of
bullying reveal more loneliness and depression, greater school avoidance, more suicidal
ideation, and less self-esteem than their non-bullied peers (Hawker & Boulton, 2000).
Findings have been mixed about the stability of bullying behavior over time. In one
study, bullying perpetration and victimization at age 8 were related to bullying
perpetration and victimization at age 16, with particularly strong associations emerging

for victimization patterns and for the experiences of boys (Sourander, Helstela,
Helenius, & Piha, 2000). Similarly, in a later study, girls and boys classified as victims in
Grade 4 were significantly more likely than their peers to be identified as victims in
Grade 7 (Paul & Cillesen, 2003).
It does appear though that the psychological costs associated with involvement are not
transient. Adults at the age of 23, who had been chronically victimized in their youth,
had lower self-esteem and were more depressed than non-victimized members of their
cohort who had not been bullied (Olweus, 1993). Whereas victims tend to report more
internalizing behaviors, bullies are more likely than their peers to engage in
externalizing behaviors, to experience conduct problems, and to be delinquent (Nansel
et al., 2001). Furthermore, long-term outcomes for bullies can be serious; compared to
their peers, bullies are more likely to be convicted of crimes in adulthood (Olweus,
1993). One study revealed that youth identified as bullies in school had a one in four
chance of having a criminal record by age 30 (Eron, Huesmann, Dubow, Romanoff, &
Yarnel, 1987). Finally, considerable research has documented that the most at-risk
group of youth is bully-victims. Bully-victims demonstrate more externalizing behaviors,
are more hyperactive, and have a greater probability of being referred for psychiatric
consultation than their peers (Nansel et al., 2001).

CREATING BULLY-FREE ACADEMIC ENVIRONMENTS AND

PROTECTING VICTIMS
Many school-based bullying prevention and intervention programs include training
teachers to create bully-free environments. For example, bullying prevention programs
generally encourage teachers to generate rules about bullying collaboratively with their
students. These rules typically include variants of the following: (a) Bully is not allowed
in the classroom; (b) If a child is being bullied, then students and teachers will help him
or her; and (c) Students and teachers work to include students who are left out. These
rules are often posted in the classroom. Students and teachers are also encouraged to
generate potential sanctions for violating the rules, including an individual talk with the
bully, taking away a privilege, etc. Teachers are encouraged to hold class meetings to
review the rules and sanctions in weekly class meetings in which students and teachers
sit in a circle and discuss incidents of bullying. Teachers should also use praise when
students engage in pro-social or caring acts.
Teachers are often encouraged then to incorporate a prevention program that more
specifically teaches about bullying and helps children develop skills to minimize the risk
of involvement with bullying. One program that is relatively inexpensive and easily
adopted by elementary and middle school classroom teachers is Bully Busters
(Newman, Horne, & Bartolomucci, 2000). Unlike many bullying prevention programs,
Bully Busters has strong empirical support for its efficacy. For example, teachers who

were trained to implement the program reported significantly higher levels of selfefficacy for managing bullying behavior, demonstrated greater knowledge of classroom
behavior management, and had fewer classroom behavior problems and office referrals
than comparison teachers (Newman-Carlson & Horne, 2004).
In this program, teachers are encouraged to do the following:

Develop a definition of bullying collaboratively with students. Exercises are used

to facilitate a conversation among students about who is a bully, what is bullying,
and where it happens.

Facilitate activities with students to recognize how their words/actions can be

hurtful, and then role-play more constructive ways of interacting.

Discuss with students how bullying develops and the variety of forms it can take.
Activities could include viewing movies or reading books in which characters are
victims or bullies.

Engage in conversations with students about the effects of victimization and

challenge myths about victims.

Encourage bystander intervention and encourage students to break the code of

silence and create a safer climate for all students.

Teach empathy skills training, social skills training, and anger management skills.

Assist victims in becoming aware of their strengths, viewing themselves in a

positive manner, and building skills and confidence in joining groups.

Identify how their attitudes and behaviors influence student behavior and how
school-level factors relate to bullying.

School-based bullying perpetration and victimization develops and is maintained as a

result of various factors, including a child's personality, home environment, peers, and
experiences at school. Children and adolescents are at-risk for developing aggression or
are at-risk for being involved in bullying because they have multiple risk factors and few
protective experiences. However, research suggests that involvement in bullying can be
prevented. For example, social support, teacher attachment, supportive friends, a
positive school climate, involvement in extracurricular activities, all serve to protect or
buffer children from both experiencing and expressing bullying, and these factors also
serve to minimize the psychological impact over time.
See also:Aggression

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics
and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1731.

Boulton, M. J., Trueman, L., & Flemington, J. (2002). Associations between secondary
school student's definitions of bullying, attitudes towards bullying, and tendencies to
engage in bullying: Age and sex differences. Educational Studies, 28(4), 353370.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & Feldlaufer, H. (1993).
Negative effects of traditional middle schools on students' motivation. Elementary
School Journal, 93, 553574.
Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E., Romanoff, R., & Yarnel, P. W. (1987). Aggression
and its correlates over 22 years. In D. H. Crowell & I. M. Evans (Eds.), Childhood
aggression and violence: Sources of influence, prevention, and control (pp. 249262).
New York: Plenum Press.
Espelage, D., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence:
Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123142.
Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. (2003). Examination of peer-group contextual
effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1), 205220.
Espelage, D. L., Mebane, S., & Adams, R. (2004). Empathy, caring, and bullying: Toward
an understanding of complex associations. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer
(Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social ecological perspective on prevention and
intervention (pp. 3761). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Espelage, D. L., Wasserman, S., & Fleisher, M. (2007). Social networks and violent
behavior. In D. J. Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook
of violent behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization
and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional
studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441455.
Holt, M., & Espelage, D. (2005). Multiple victimization of adolescents. In K. KendallTackett & S. Giacomoni (Eds.),Victimization of children and youth: Patterns of abuse,
response strategies (pp. 1316). Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. (1992). Causal attributions: From cognitive
processes to collective beliefs. Oxford: Blackwell.
Jvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The
strong, the weak, and the troubled.Pediatrics, 112(6), 12311237.
Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The effects of school climate
on changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S.
M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on
prevention and intervention (pp. 187210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McFadyen-Ketchum, S. A., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Patterns of
change in early childhood aggressive-disruptive behavior: Gender differences in
predictions from early coercive and affectionate mother-child interactions. Child
Development, 67(5), 24172433.

Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relationship of empathy to aggressive and
externalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324344.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.
(2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with
psychosocial adjustment.Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 20942100.
Newman, D. A., Horne, A. M., & Bartolomucci, C. L. (2000). Bully busters: A teacher's
manual for helping bullies, victims, and bystanders. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Newman, R. S., Murray, B., & Lussier, C. (2001). Confrontation with aggressive peers at
school: Students' reluctance to seek help from the teacher. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(2), 398410.
Newman-Carlson, D., & Horne, A. (2004). Bully-busters: A psychoeducational
intervention for reducing bullying behavior in middle school students. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 82, 259267.
Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington,
DC: Hemisphere.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Long-term
consequences and an effective intervention program. In S. Hodgins (Ed.), Mental
disorder and crime (pp. 317349). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying,
emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J.
Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable
and victimized (pp. 147174). New York: Guilford Press.
Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (1991). Bullying in UK schools: The DES Sheffield Bullying
Project. Early Childhood Development and Care, 77, 4755.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as
risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 30, 349363.
Sourander, A., Helstela, L., Helenius, H., & Piha, J. (2000). Persistence of bullying from
childhood to adolescence: A longitudinal 8-year follow-up study. Child Abuse & Neglect,
24, 873881.
Troy, M., & Sroufe, L. A. (1987). Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachment
relationship history. Journalof the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 26, 166172.
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. A. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group
membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development,
68, 11981209.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in
junior/middle and secondary schools.Educational Research, 35, 325.