Adavanced COMP - Source Summary
dsh8428
Preventing School Failure, 56(3), 165–171, 2012 Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1045-988X print / 1940-4387 online DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.633283
School Bullying: Why Quick Fixes Do Not Prevent School Failure
CINDY M. CASEBEER
The University of Texas–Pan American, Edinburg, TX, USA
School bullying is a serious problem. It is associated with negative effects for bullies, targets, and bystanders. Bullying is related to school shootings, student suicides, and poor academic outcomes. Yet, this issue cannot be solved by way of simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. Instead, school bullying is a complex, systemic issue that requires a deep understanding of the multiple variables with which it is associated. Furthermore, effective interventions require systematic, whole-school initiatives. In this article, the author identifies types of school bullying and defines participant roles. In addition, she discusses the complex nature of this issue and briefly examines its short- and long-term effects. Further, the author presents and discusses various school-based bullying interventions. Last, she provides recommendations concerning effective interventions to combat school bullying.
Keywords: low-level aggression, school-based violence, school bullying
School bullying is an issue of deep concern across the United States. This attention is due, in large part, to re- ports indicating the association between school bullying and school shootings (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002), and between school bullying and stu- dent suicides (Klomek, Marrocco, Kleinman, Schonfeld, & Gould, 2007). Moreover, school bullying has been shown to be associated with serious negative effects for bully targets (Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001), bullies (Nansel et al., 2001), and bystanders or witnesses (Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Bullying is associated with a negative classroom and/or school climate (Yoneyama & Rigby, 2006), lower school commitment (Esbensen & Carson, 2009), and poor academic outcomes (Glew, Fan, Katon, Rivara, & Kernic, 2005). Moreover, bullying is as- sociated with long-term, negative effects, including poor psychosocial adjustment (Sourander et al., 2007) and on- going physical and mental health problems (Rigby, 1999). It is clear that school bullying is a serious issue that impedes student success.
There is evidence (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009) that bullying is common among youth across the United States. Nansel and colleagues (2001) reported that approximately 30% of their sample indicated moderate to frequent involvement in bullying
Address correspondence to Cindy M. Casebeer, Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas–Pan American, 1201 W. University Drive, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
(with 13% who were bullies, approximately 11% who were bullied, and approximately 6% who were both). Wang and colleagues (2009) reported that, of their respondents, approximately 54% indicated they had either verbally bullied or been the targets of verbal bullying during the 3 months before their study, while approximately 51% had either socially bullied or been the targets of social bullying, and approximately 21% had either physically bullied or been the targets of physical bullying.
It is understandable that concerned members of the public are demanding efforts to address this pervasive issue. As state legislatures make school bullying legislation part of their mandates, many school districts scramble to address multiple, and often conflicting, requirements while creating and implementing antibullying programs (Limber & Small, 2003). These initiatives are laudable because of the apparent recognition that bullying is a serious issue that warrants appropriate action. However, there is the danger that some interventions may provide little more than reac- tive, superficial, short-term, or one-size-fits-all efforts that may fail to adequately address the issues, that may lead to additional problems, or both (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999). Moreover, there is the risk that ineffective antibullying programs may displace those that are more effective (Black, Washington, Trent, Harner, & Pollock, 2010). Thus, par- ents, educators, and members of the public may be misled into believing that effective interventions are in place to combat school bullying when this is not the case. Therefore, it is essential that educators use evidence-based interven- tions to effectively address this serious issue (Black et al., 2010).
166 Casebeer
Definitions and types of school bullying
Dan Olweus is one of the most important seminal re- searchers to study school bullying. His work began in Swe- den and Norway in the late 1960s and early 1970s (e.g., Olweus, 2001). Over the years, researchers from many lo- calities including Australia, Europe, and Canada have ex- amined school bullying. In the United States, researchers have been rather late in studying this issue (Swearer & Es- pelage, 2004). Nevertheless, there are increasing numbers of published research studies on school bullying in the United States.
Even though there are various definitions for school bul- lying, it is generally agreed that it is a subset of aggression (Solberg, Olweus, & Endresen, 2007) that involves hostile behavior by one or more bullies who generally initiate the bullying with little or no provocation from the target (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). The goal of bullying varies, but it is generally used to gain power, prestige, or goods (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). It involves systematic, ongo- ing, individual, or group behavior aimed at threatening or generally oppressing the target (Yoneyama & Rigby, 2006). Furthermore, school bullying involves a systematic abuse of power or strength that makes it difficult for the target to mount a successful defense (Olweus, 2001).
Over the years, researchers from a variety of disciplines have examined bullying using multiple terms, some of which conflict with others; this has led to some confusion among researchers and practitioners. However, it is gener- ally agreed that there are three main types of bullying: phys- ical, verbal, and relational (Olweus, 2001). Physical bullying involves physical violence such as shoving, kicking, hitting, or pushing (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Verbal bullying in- volves name-calling or hurtful teasing (Wang et al., 2009). Physical and verbal bullying are sometimes referred to as direct aggression (Espelage & Swearer, 2003); relational bul- lying is sometimes referred to as indirect aggression (Wang et al., 2009) or social aggression (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Relational bullying involves the manipulation of relation- ships (Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2001) and functions to damage the self-esteem of the target, harm the social status of the target, or exclude the target from a desired group (Archer & Coyne, 2005). It may include spreading rumors or gos- sip, social isolation, or betraying confidences (Owens et al., 2001). Moreover, relational aggression may be overt or covert, but it is generally covert; children often attempt to keep this type of behavior hidden from adults (Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). By the time adults become aware of the situation, it is usually serious (Owens et al., 2001).
Physical and verbal bullying, by their overt nature, are easy to recognize; thus, it may be easier for school authorities to address these bullying types (Hazler, Miller, Carney, & Green, 2001). However, relational aggression may be manifested in a more covert manner, making it difficult for teachers or other authority figures to recognize the behavior (Merrell, Buchanan, & Tran, 2006), the
harm (Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005), or the relational bullies, themselves (Young et al., 2006). Teachers may not know how to deal effectively with relational bullying (Mishna et al., 2005), and they may not feel there is sufficient administrative support for them to effectively intervene in such bullying situations (Mishna et al., 2005). Moreover, relational bullying may be masked because of teacher bias influenced by student reputation (Merrell et al., 2006). Thus, teachers may be inclined to downplay the seriousness of relational aggression while failing to provide appropriate interventions and support to targets. Teachers may underestimate the prevalence of bullying and fail to stop bullying when they see it. Last, as with all types of bullying, teachers and administrators may exacerbate the situation by siding with bullies and blaming targets (Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). Therefore, it may be more chal- lenging to design, implement, and evaluate interventions for relational bullying (Merrell et al., 2006). This illustrates only one set of reasons why educators should avoid the use of simplistic, supposedly one-size-fits-all solutions.
Roles
It is important to note that school bullying almost always takes place in a group situation, with students taking on one or more roles across time and circumstances: bully, target, bully assistant, bully reinforcer, target defender, and outsider/bystander (Salmivalli, 2001). In general, bystanders are not directly involved as either bullies or targets (Salmivalli, 2001). Bullies are regarded as antag- onists, whereas targets are regarded as their marks. Bully assistants follow and help bullies, and bully reinforcers provide reinforcing feedback to bullies. Target defenders take the side of the target and try to get others to stop the bullying. Outsiders frequently withdraw and avoid reacting to the bullying (Salmivalli, 2001).
The term target is preferable to the term victim; the term target is more accurate in describing roles. Moreover, the term target may be regarded as more positive in orientation, with the implication that the role is not necessarily perma- nent. The term victim should be avoided to prevent creating or adding a sense of hopelessness and helplessness in the target, both of which could contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Targets have been found to share some characteristics, including poor social skills (Fox & Boulton, 2005), greater internalization problems (Marini, Dane, Bosacki, & YLC- CURA, 2006), and poor peer relationships (Marini et al., 2006). Bullies have been found to hold beliefs supportive of aggression and to enjoy high social standing among their classmates (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003). More- over, there is some evidence (e.g., Kaukiainen et al., 1999) that relational bullies, in particular, may have high social intelligence.
School Bullying 167
A separate role is that of bully–target or provocative victim (Olweus, 2001). Students who are classified in this subgroup may exhibit characteristics of pure targets and pure bullies in that they show anxious and aggressive behav- ior patterns (Olweus, 2001). There is evidence bully–targets exhibit a range of psychosocial risk factors, including lower self-esteem (M. O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001), greater levels of aggression (Perren & Alsaker, 2006), a higher level of normative beliefs legitimizing antisocial behavior (Marini et al., 2006), increased rates of depression (Kaltiala-Heino, M. Rimpelä, Marttunen, A. Rimpelä, & Rantanen, 1999), and greater suicide ideation (Kaltiala-Heino et al., 1999). Last, there is evidence (e.g., Glew, Fan, Katon, & Rivara, 2008) bully-targets are more likely to endorse carrying a weapon to school. It is clear that bully-targets, in particular, are in need of appropriate interventions (Marini et al., 2006).
There is some evidence (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001) that boys act as targets and bullies more frequently than do girls. Moreover, bullying seems to be more common in Grades 6–8 (Nansel et al., 2001). Yet, bullying has been found to occur at all grade levels, including preschool (Monks, Smith, & Swettenham, 2003), Kindergarten (Perren & Alsaker, 2006), elementary and high school (M. O’Moore & Kirkham, 2001), and beyond (Chapell et al., 2006). Some researchers (e.g., Crick & Nelson, 2002; Nansel et al., 2001) have found that boys report more physical bullying than do girls, and girls report more relational bullying than do boys. However, Kuppens and colleagues (2008) found no distinct gender differences in terms of relational aggression. Moreover, experts (e.g., Merrell et al., 2006; Underwood, Galen, & Paquette, 2001) have cautioned against regarding relational bullying as simply a female issue; boys, too, have been found to engage in relational aggression (Merrell et al., 2006). Archer and Coyne (2005) argued that girls are not necessarily more relationally aggressive than are boys; however, girls tend to use relational aggression more often than do boys; the opposite is true for physical aggression.
Nevertheless, there remain questions concerning preva- lence estimates of bullying (Esbensen & Carson, 2009). Over the years, researchers have applied a wide variety of definitions (Underwood et al., 2001) and have used a range of measurement tools (Cole, Cornell, & Sheras, 2006) to examine this issue; these have often led to misunder- standings and questions concerning prevalence estimates (Esbensen & Carson, 2009). In terms of measurement, some experts (e.g., Cole et al., 2006; Pellegrini, 2001) have cautioned against the overuse of self-reporting instruments to identify bullying. Cole and colleagues (2006) found evidence that the use of self-reporting instruments may lead to an underestimation of bullying, while peer reporting may yield more accurate findings. Therefore, researchers may wish to use peer reports when attempting to identify bullies.
Bullying Interventions
School bullying is a complex issue that calls for more than one-size-fits-all, knee-jerk reactions. Instead, it is a multifaceted, systemic problem that demands long-term, comprehensive, and coordinated schoolwide interventions (Garrity, Jens, Porter, Sager, & Short-Camilli, 1997). Ex- perts (e.g., Barboza et al., 2009; Rodkin & Hodges, 2003) have argued that bullying can best be understood through an ecological framework. Bullying involves multiple par- ticipants at multiple levels (Mishna et al., 2005). Moreover, aggressive behaviors are propagated and valued chiefly by way of groups; however, group dynamics may vary considerably across schools and classrooms (Rodkin & Hodges, 2003). If teachers and other authority figures are to intervene effectively, they must first understand the peer ecologies in which their students interact, including their multiple layers of instigators, facilitators, targets, bullies, and bystanders. Otherwise, they risk inviting resistance and defiance that may serve to worsen the situation (Rodkin & Hodges, 2003).
Nevertheless, aggression is considered a learned behav- ior; as such, students can learn to replace it with prosocial behavior that benefits all members of the community (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999). Van Acker and Talbott (1999) argued that effective interventions against student aggres- sion include the following: (a) the promotion of positive behavioral supports; (b) the improvement of support sys- tems, with the school taking a central role; (c) the use of instructional strategies that promote social and academic development; (d) increased teacher education; (e) increased teacher support; (f) the development of nonaversive inter- ventions that promote prosocial problem-solving strate- gies; (g) the development and use of effective screening methods to identify students who are at risk so that early and continuous interventions can be used effectively; and (h) improved communication among home, school, and community to increase accountability. These are compara- ble to the components of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a well-known and well-researched program that is characterized by the following: (a) the warm, caring in- volvement of adults toward students; (b) clearly delineated behavioral expectations; and (c) the application of non- hostile, nonphysical consequences upon violation of the behavioral expectations (Limber, 2004).
Practitioners and researchers would undoubtedly prefer detailed, completely separate lists and descriptions of interventions that work and those that do not work. However, research on school bullying interventions is still in its infancy, with few programs associated with documented positive results. Some potentially useful programs have never been subjected to systematic research evaluation (e.g., Olweus, 2004).
The most promising individual intervention is that of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, a comprehensive,
168 Casebeer
whole-school program originally developed by Dan Olweus to address bullying in Norwegian schools (Olweus, 1994). The aim of the program is to reduce school bullying across the entire school community. In his study on the effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in Bergen, Nor- way, Olweus (1994) found evidence that this program is associated with several positive outcomes, including sig- nificant reductions in bullying. In their evaluation of the program in Ireland, A. M. O’Moore and Minton (2005) also found evidence of significant reductions in bullying. However, other researchers who have examined the pro- gram have found modest (Black et al., 2010) to mixed ef- fects (Bauer, Lozano, & Rivara, 2007), leading to questions concerning whether this intervention can be successfully implemented across a broad range of settings. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to examine the effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and other bullying intervention programs across a range of settings and pop- ulations to determine whether and how they work.
Even so, only recently has there been a critical mass of sufficient studies to complete a meaningful meta-analysis or other synthesis of research findings (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). The lack of a large number of research studies on this issue may be attributed to the fact that, at least in the United States, researchers face considerable institutional and societal barriers when they attempt to conduct studies on school bullying (Swearer & Espelage, 2004).
In addition, many interventions are associated with mixed effects. Interventions are associated with one of three outcomes: decreases in bullying, no effects, or increases in bullying (Vreeman & Carroll, 2007). There are several pos- sible reasons for these results, which may be associated with, among other variables: level of faculty, staff, and student involvement; student age/development; school structure; intervention type; intervention aims; outcome measures; treatment fidelity; and measurement instruments. More- over, rigor in study design and implementation influence the findings themselves and the external validity of those findings (J. D. Smith, Schneider, P. K. Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004). Last, there are significant differences between inter- vention theories and techniques; Merrell and colleagues (2008) argued that it is incorrect to view school bullying interventions as a common entity. All of these issues point to the need for continuing research on this topic.
Nevertheless, a few researchers (e.g., Merrell et al., 2008; J. D. Smith et al., 2004; Vreeman & Carroll, 2007) have completed reviews of various research studies on school bullying interventions. These researchers have examined a broad range of studies that involve an extensive assortment of interventions. It is not surprising, however, that these researchers have found mixed effects for various interven- tions.
In their 2004 synthesis of evaluation research on 14 specifically whole-school research studies across several countries, Smith and colleagues indicated that the majority
of researchers found no significant program effects on mea- sures of self-reported victimization and bullying. However, the researchers found evidence of positive outcomes as- sociated with a small number of programs. They argued that programs in which implementation was systematically monitored were more often associated with greater efficacy than were programs without any monitoring. Last, Smith and colleagues stated that the whole-school approach has led to important reductions in bullying in a number of cases, but the results of their synthesis are too inconsistent to warrant the adoption of these programs to the exclusion of others.
Similarly, in their meta-analysis of 16 bullying interven- tion studies across several countries and involving various programs (whole-school, individual classroom, and across schools), Merrell and colleagues (2008) found evidence of a wide dispersion of effects across measurement methods, classification variables, and school bullying interventions. Nevertheless, they found evidence that various interven- tions, such as those aimed at improving peer support and the school environment, are associated with reduced bul- lying. However, these researchers found a lack of mean- ingful effects, or even increased bullying, associated with the use of simplistic programs, such as those involving only an antibullying policy paired with peer support, and those involving a single classroom, rather than a whole-school, focus.
Last, in their review of 26 intervention studies across various countries and involving multiple interventions (curriculum-based, whole-school, social skills, mentoring, and social worker support), Vreeman and Carroll (2007) found evidence that many school-based interventions are associated with direct reductions in bullying. Specifically, they found evidence that whole-school interventions (es- pecially with older students) were more often associated with reductions in bullying than were either curriculum- based antibullying interventions or social skills training programs. They also found evidence that the one mentor- ing study and the one social worker support study were associated with decreased bullying. Nevertheless, Vreeman and Carroll (2007) found that social skills training inter- ventions were largely associated with no clear reductions in bullying. Last, they found that only a few curriculum-based antibullying interventions were effective; however, this var- ied by population. The researchers argued that, because bullying involves a systemic group process across the entire school environment, it might be necessary to implement in- terventions designed to alter the attitudes and behaviors of members of the entire school community, rather than only a subset, such as a classroom.
Tools for Educators
Yet, what can educators use to combat bullying in their schools and classrooms? Educators must avoid relying on
School Bullying 169
simple, quick-fix, or one-size-fits-all interventions, regard- less of how well-meaning their perceived intentions. Such interventions may not only be ineffective, but they may be associated with serious, unintended side effects. Specifically, zero-tolerance (or exclusion) policies may fail to address underlying issues (Martı́nez, 2009), or they may even un- dermine intervention efforts by discouraging the reporting of bullying behaviors and excluding students from valuable learning opportunities (Limber, 2004). Similarly, mediation or conflict-resolution techniques may undermine effective bullying interventions. Further, these interventions may ex- acerbate the bullying situation (Limber, 2004) in that they fail to take into consideration the fact that bullying is not the result of simple conflict; rather, it involves the exploita- tion of a serious imbalance of physical or social power (Limber, 2004). Last, the use of group treatments may be counterproductive in that group members may serve as role models of, and reinforcers for, bullying behaviors (Limber, 2004).
In contrast, educators should use some general tools in their efforts to combat school bullying. Specifically, in their examination of the effects of the Olweus Bullying Preven- tion Program in the Southeastern United States, Limber and colleagues (2004) discussed numerous components of the program that can help to reduce school bullying. These include the increased supervision of student behavior, the reinforcement of prosocial behaviors, and the encourage- ment of parent involvement. Moreover, educators should encourage students to (a) try to help others who are being bullied and (b) make a point of including students who are easily left out of group activities. Individual classroom interventions may include regular classroom meetings to educate students concerning (a) the identification of bully- ing behaviors, (b) the seriousness of bullying, and (c) the techniques by which they can help to discourage or stop bullying. Last, Limber and colleagues (2004) asserted that individual educators need to assume intervention respon- sibility for every bullying instance.
Cautionary Notes for Practitioners
It is understandable that practitioners wish to intervene as soon as possible when they identify a bullying situation. All practitioners should be ready to intervene each and every time they encounter aggressive student behavior, if only to stabilize the situation and to prevent further harm. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that even the most well- intentioned interventions may be associated with negative consequences.
Therefore, it is essential that practitioners remain care- ful and mindfully consider the immediate and long-term effects of their intervention efforts (Merrell et al., 2008). If it is determined that specific interventions are either not producing the intended positive results, or are associated with unintended negative effects, practitioners must take
appropriate steps to determine the nature of the problem or problems. Then, they must work to find and use those interventions that are effective and that are not associated with unintended negative effects (Merrell et al., 2008).
Conclusions
School bullying is a complex, serious issue that can negatively influence the school environment (Esbensen & Carson, 2009) and student learning outcomes (Glew et al., 2005). It involves various roles and networks that can and often do change over time and across contexts (Barboza et al., 2009). In addition, there is tremendous variability between schools and the students and communities they serve. The most effective interventions for particular schools and students may be those that are tailor-made to meet their specific needs and situations.
To effectively combat school bullying, interventions must be aimed at addressing root causes. Simplistic, knee-jerk, or one-size-fits-all interventions should be avoided. Effective interventions require a long-term commitment on the part of the entire school community to expend the resources nec- essary to address this pernicious issue. Moreover, because of the number of variables inherent in school bullying, re- searchers and practitioners need to work together to deter- mine which interventions are most effective for particular situations, and under what circumstances. Our students and our society deserve no less than a safe environment in which all members can flourish and achieve their full potential; in short, all members of the school community deserve a positive environment that facilitates school success.
Author note
Cindy M. Casebeer is an assistant professor at the University of Texas–Pan American. Her current research interests include school bul- lying, school socioemotional climate, teacher education, and classroom assessment.
References
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212–230. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903 2
Barboza, G. E., Schiamberg, L. B., Oehmke, J., Korzeniewski, S. J., Post, L. A., & Heraux, C. G. (2009). Individual characteristics and the multiple contexts of adolescent bullying: An ecological per- spective. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(1), 101–121. doi: 10.1007/s10964-008-9271-1
Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 266–274. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.10.005
Black, S., Washington, E., Trent, V., Harner, P., & Pollock, E. (2010). Translating the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program into
170 Casebeer
real-world practice. Health Promotion Practice, 11, 733–740. doi: 10.1177/1524839908321562
Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480–484. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7311.480
Chapell, M. S., Hasselman, S. L., Kitchin, T., Lomon, S. N., MacIver, K. W., & Sarullo, P. L. (2006). Bullying in elementary school, high school, and college. Adolescence, 41(164), 633–648.
Cole, J. C. M., Cornell, D. G., & Sheras, P. (2006). Identification of school bullies by survey methods. Professional School Counseling, 9, 305–313.
Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical vic- timization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 599–607. doi: 10.1023/a:1020811714064
Esbensen, F.-A., & Carson, D. C. (2009). Consequences of being bullied: Results from a longitudinal assessment of bullying victimization in a multisite sample of American students. Youth & Society, 41, 209–233. doi: 10.1177/0044118×09351067
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.
Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Ed- ucational Psychology, 75, 313–328. doi: 10.1348/000709905X25517
Garrity, C., Jens, K., Porter, W. W., Sager, N., & Short-Camilli, C. (1997). Bully proofing your school: Creating a positive climate. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32, 235–243. doi: 10.1177/105345129703200407
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying and school safety. Journal of Pediatrics, 152(1), 123–128.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.05.045
Glew, G. M., Fan, M.-Y., Katon, W., Rivara, F. P., & Kernic, M. A. (2005). Bullying, psychosocial adjustment, and academic performance in elementary school. Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1026–1031. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026
Hazler, R. J., Miller, D. L., Carney, J. V., & Green, S. (2001). Adult recognition of school bullying situations. Educational Research, 43, 133–146. doi: 10.1080/00131880110051137
Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231–1237.
Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpelä, A., & Ranta- nen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: School survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348–351.
Kaukiainen, A., Björkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Österman, K., Salmi- valli, C., Rothberg, S., & Ahlbom, A. (1999). The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggres- sion. Aggressive Behavior, 25(2), 81–89. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1098- 2337(1999)25:2<81::aid-ab1>3.0.co;2-m
Klomek, A. B., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007). Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(1), 40–49. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000242237.84925.18
Kuppens, S., Grietens, H., Onghena, P., Michiels, D., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Individual and classroom variables associated with relational aggression in elementary-school aged children: A mul- tilevel analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 639–660. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.06.005
Limber, S. P. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 351–363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Flerx, V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme in
the Southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–79). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address bullying in schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 445–455.
Marini, Z. A., Dane, A. V., Bosacki, S. L., & YLC-CURA. (2006). Direct and indirect bully–victims: Differential psychosocial risk factors associated with adolescents involved in bullying and victimization. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 551–569. doi: 10.1002/ab.20155
Martı́nez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance poli- cies really affecting schools? Preventing School Failure, 53, 153–157. doi: 10.3200/PSFL.53.3.153-158
Merrell, K. W., Buchanan, R., & Tran, O. K. (2006). Relational ag- gression in children and adolescents: A review with implications for school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 345–360. doi: 10.1002/pits.20145
Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(1), 26–42. doi: 10.1037/1045-3830.23.1.26
Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ under- standing of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28, 718–738.
Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2003). Aggressors, victims, and defenders in preschool: Peer, self-, and teacher reports. Merrill- Palmer Quarterly, 49, 453–469. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2003.0024
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Jour- nal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.16.2094
Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychi- atry, 35, 1171–1190. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1994.tb01229.x
Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some impor- tant issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13–36). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
O’Moore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of the effective- ness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 609–622. doi: 10.1002/ab.20098
O’Moore, M., & Kirkham, C. (2001). Self-esteem and its relation- ship to bullying behaviour. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 269–283. doi: 10.1002/ab.1010
Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2001). Victimization among teenage girls: What can be done about indirect harassment? In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 215–241). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pellegrini, A. D. (2001). Sampling instances of victimization in middle school: A methodological comparison. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 125–144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully–victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(1), 45–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1469- 7610.2005.01445.x
Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 95–104. doi: 10.1348/000709999157590
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 211–223. doi: 10.1037/a0018164
School Bullying 171
Rodkin, P. C., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2003). Bullies and vic- tims in the peer ecology: Four questions for psychologists and school professionals. School Psychology Review, 32, 384– 400.
Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398–419). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole-school antibullying programs: A syn- thesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547– 560.
Solberg, M. E., Olweus, D., & Endresen, I. M. (2007). Bullies and victims at school: Are they the same pupils? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 441–464. doi: 10.1348/000709906X105689
Sourander, A., Jensen, P., Rönning, J. A., Niemelä, S., Helenius, H., Sillanmäki, L., . . . Almqvist, F. (2007). What is the early adult- hood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “From a Boy to a Man” study. Pediatrics, 120, 397–404. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-2704
Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2004). Introduction: A social- ecological framework of bullying among youth. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social- ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 1–12). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Underwood, M. K., Galen, B. R., & Paquette, J. A. (2001). Top ten challenges for understanding gender and aggression in children: Why can’t we all just get along? Social Development, 10, 248–266. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00162
Van Acker, R., & Talbott, E. (1999). The school context and risk for aggression: Implications for school-based prevention and intervention efforts. Preventing School Failure, 44, 12–20. doi: 10.1080/10459880009602738
Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The final report and findings of the “Safe School Initiative”: Implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Secret Service.
Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school- based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 161(1), 78–88. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, rela- tional, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 368–375. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021
Yoneyama, S., & Rigby, K. (2006). Bully/victim students & classroom climate. Youth Studies Australia, 25(3), 34–41.
Young, E. L., Boye, A. E., & Nelson, D. A. (2006). Relational aggression: Understanding, identifying, and responding in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 297–312. doi: 10.1002/pits.20148
Copyright of Preventing School Failure is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.