1. bullying in school. nature, effects and remedies

Bullying in school: nature, effectsand remedies

Xin Ma, Len L. Stewin and Deveda L. Mah

ABSTRACT

This review synthesizes recent research on bullying in school, a widespread social problemamong school-age children in many countries. It begins with a theoretical examination of thede nition of bullying, showing the multifaceted coercive behaviours of bullying. The reviewproceeds to demonstrate the short- and long-term consequences of bullying for both victimsand bullies. The authors outline individual characteristics of victims, bullies and bystanders aswell as school characteristics of bullying. The authors examine, from the sociological perspective,the social tolerance of bullying, and provide theoretical bases for explaining bullying behaviours.The review ends with a discussion on successful prevention and intervention programmes ofbullying as well as on the counselling aspects of bullying. In addition, the authors examinequantitative and qualitative methods commonly used in the research of bullying, evaluating eachmethod and introducing new, promising quantitative and qualitative methods, and discussfuture directions in the study of bullying in school.

Keywords: bullying; victims; bullies; intervention; counselling

As a centuries-old phenomenon, bullying has existed in schools for a long time. Traditionalwisdom regards bullying as not seriously harmful, a natural part of growing up, and helpful to toughen up children and to prepare them for adulthood (Cartwright, 1995). A remarkableshift of public attitude toward bullying took place in the early 1980s when three Norwegianboys aged 10 to 14 committed suicide partly as a result of severe bullying by their peers (Olweus,1991a; 1991b). Subsequently, other tragic incidents from several places in the world haveheightened public concern about bullying. For example, in Detroit, US, a young victim ofbullying reacted with extreme anger shooting and killing the bully (Greenbaum, 1988). InTokyo, Japan, a 13 year-old boy hanged himself leaving a note blaming his classmates for

Research Papers in Education ISSN 0267-1522 print/ISSN 1470-1146 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp://www.tandf.co.uk/journals

DOI: 10.1080/02671520110058688

Xin Ma is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, University ofAlberta; Len L. Stewin is a Professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, Universityof Alberta; Deveda L. Mah is a Doctoral Candidate in the Department of EducationalPsychology, University of Alberta.

Research Papers in Education 16(3) 2001, pp. 247 270

severe bullying (Lane, 1989). In Victoria, Canada, a 14 year-old girl died after being left todrown following severe bullying by her peers (Vancouver Province, 15 November 1998).

In Goals 2000: Education America Act, President Clinton signed into law eight NationalEducation Goals. The sixth goal aims to have every American school free of drugs, violence, rearms and unauthorized alcohol, as well as offering a disciplined environment conducive tolearning (National Education Goals Panel, 1993). Researchers are now taking a multifacetapproach that emphasizes societal, community, school, family, relationship and personal factorsto understand and treat school violence (see Carter and Stewin, 1999). School violence hastraditionally referred to acts of assault, theft and vandalism. With increasing public concernabout school safety, administrators, educators and parents now consider school violence asincluding ` any conditions or acts that create a climate in which individual students and teachersfeel fear or intimidation in addition to being the victims of assault, theft, or vandalism (Batscheand Knoff, 1994, p. 165). This broadened definition of school violence certainly includesbullying that has become a prevalent, serious social problem among school-age children inmany parts of the world.

Given the recent surge of interest and research in bullying in school, the current review isan attempt to update our knowledge on this important issue. Our aims were (a) to examine thenature and effects of bullying in school; (b) to portray individual characteristics of bullies andvictims as well as characteristics of schools that bullies and victims attend; (c) to synthesizeremedies for bullying in school; (d) to explore theoretical ideas that elucidate the mechanismsof bullying and its multiple manifestations; and (e) to critique existing studies methodologicallyand outline directions for further studies.

Using the keyword `bullying , we electronically searched four databases: EducationalResources Information Center (ERIC); Current Content; Dissertation Abstracts International(DAI); and PsycLIT. Retrieved articles were screened to keep those that were published after 1985. We primarily examined research articles (based on quantitative and/or qualitativeprimary empirical data). Although we did read articles in non-academic, professional journals,we mainly looked for research evidence presented in those articles. We also narrowed down the number of articles by selecting only those describing bullying in elementary and/or secondary schools. Selected articles were then examined in terms of focus, method andresults.

THE NATURE OF BULLYING

De nitions of bullying

Prior to the Norwegian tragedy, there was little literature on bullying. As a result, bullying wasinadequately de ned. However, extensive research had been done in the area of aggression.Aggression is commonly de ned as a response that delivers noxious stimuli to another organism(see Buss, 1961). Bullying, by nature, is a form of aggression. Consequently, bullying resemblesaggression in de nition (Randall, 1997). Hazler et al. (1992) noted that `bullying is a form ofaggression in which one student, or a group of students, physically or psychologically abuses avictim over a period of time (p. 20). Randall (1997) stated that `bullying is the aggressivebehavior arising from the deliberate intent to cause physical or psychological distress to others(p. 4). These two de nitions are representative of the classical de nitions of bullying.

A careful examination of the above definitions reveals their similarities and differences,

248 Research Papers in Education Volume 16 Number 3

which are very important in shaping the concept of bullying. Both de nitions describe bullyingas a form of aggression. However, Randalls (1997) de nition emphasizes intent, whereas Hazleret al s (1992) de nition stresses repetition. Randall (1997) believes that aggressive behaviour doesnot have to be regular or repetitive to become bullying behaviour. On the other hand, Hazleret al. (1992) believe the opposite. In line with these researchers, Olweus (1991a) stated that ` the[bullying] action is . . . repeated; it is not a one-time act (p. 49). The common weakness of bothde nitions is the lack of explicit inclusion of the ` verbal component of bullying (to be discussedlater in greater detail). Besags (1989) de nition represents a good recognition of the principalelements of bullying:

Bullying is repeated attacks physical, psychological, social or verbal by those in a positionof power, which is formally or situationally de ned, on those who are powerless to resist,with the intention of causing distress for their own gain or grati cation. (p. 4)

This de nition also accommodates the power component of bullying as described in Smith andSharp (1994) who described bullying as the systematic abuse of power. McCarthy (1997) alsoperceived bullying as a theatrical form of ritual discourse that re ects, reinforces and sometimesreshapes the hierarchical structure of the society of students within a school. A simplifiedde nition has been used in the literature that bullying is a form of aggression in which a studentor a group of students verbally or physically harasses a victim without provocation (Hazler et al., 1992). A victim is often de ned as a student who is repeatedly exposed to bullying activitieson the part of one or more students (Olweus, 1993a).

Bullying consists of a wide range of coercive behaviours that can often be classi ed intophysical and verbal bullying. Physical bullying includes hitting, pushing, holding and hostilegesturing, whereas verbal bullying includes threatening, humiliating, degrading, teasing, name-calling, put-downs, sarcasm, taunting, staring, sticking out the tongue, eye-rolling, silenttreatment, manipulating friendship and ostracizing (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997; Remboldt,1994a; 1994b). Sexual bullying in which one or more students sexually harass another studentrepeatedly has also been proposed as another distinct form of bullying (see Batsche and Knoff,1994). Unfortunately, there are considerable common confusions about bullying behaviours.For example, many adults (including educators) consider most verbal bullying tactics as normaland harmless (e.g. Hazler et al., 1992; Remboldt, 1994a; 1994b). Many educators, particularlyin elementary schools, misperceive hurtful activities associated with bullying as c`hildishbehaviors (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997).

A widespread socia l phenomenon

Bullying is a major social concern in many parts of the world. Hoover and Juul (1993) reportedthat bullying is a prevalent, serious social problem among school-age children in Europe andthe US. Similar results have also been obtained in Australia (Slee, 1994), Canada (Charach et al., 1995), and Japan (Murakami, 1995).

In the US, the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) conducted asurvey in 1984 in which 25 per cent of students surveyed indicated one of their most seriousconcerns as the f`ear of bullies (cited in Batsche and Knoff, 1994). Perry et al. (1988) reportedthat 10 per cent of students aged 9 to 12 in their sample were described as ` extreme victims bytheir classmates. Hoover et al. (1992) studied students aged 12 to 18 in Midwestern US, reporting

Bullying in school: nature, effects and remedies 249

that 75 per cent were bullied at least once and that 14 per cent of both boys and girls sufferedtrauma from the incidents. In the special report to the National Education Goals Panel, Johnstonet al. (1993) stated that 29 per cent of students in Grade 8 were threatened by individuals withouta weapon and 19 per cent were threatened by individuals with a weapon in the 1992 schoolyear. The National School Safety Center reported that about 3 million crimes (mainly bullying, ghting, carrying weapons and gang activities) occur in or near school campus each year, thatis, one crime every six seconds when school is in session (Kum-Walks, 1996). The JohnsonInstitute s survey showed that 14 per cent of school-age boys and 4 per cent of school-age girlswho responded to the survey participated in physically attacking people and intentionallystarting ghts three or more times in a year (Remboldt, 1994b).

In England, 23 per cent of both children and adolescents reported being bullied (Lane,1989). Smith (1991) studied students in single-sex schools in the UK and found that 20 per centof them were victims of bullying and 10 per cent were offenders. Among students aged 8 and9 in the UK, 26 per cent were victims and 17 per cent were bullies (Boulton and Underwood,1992). More than 6,700 secondary school students in Shef eld, England reported high rates ofbeing bullied (Whitney and Smith, 1993). A survey of 324 members of the Association forStammerers in Great Britain indicated that 82 per cent were bullied in their school lives(Mooney and Smith, 1995).

Bullying is also a widespread phenomenon in other parts of the world. Olweus (1978; 1991a) reported that 15 per cent of Norwegian school-age children were involved in bullyingeither as victims or offenders. In his other studies, Olweus (1993a; 1994) reported that 9 percent of students in his sample age 8 to 16 in Norway and Sweden experienced bullying and 7 per cent claimed to bully others `now and then or `more often. Slee (1994) reported that 14 per cent of primary and secondary school students were bullied at least ` once a week or `moreoften in Australia. Particularly, Slee (1994) showed that 26 per cent of children in Grades 3 to7 were bullied at least o`nce a week or `more often. Charach et al. (1995) surveyed studentsage 4 to 14 from 22 classrooms in Toronto, Canada and found that one-third of them wereinvolved in bullying as either victims or offenders.

Based on the statistics presented above, describing bullying in school as a serious, widespreadsocial problem is not likely to be an overstatement. As a matter of fact, Remboldt (1994b)argued that bullying statistics may well underestimate the problem because many bullyingincidents are either unreported or underreported.

Longitudinal pattern of bullying

Many administrators, educators and parents are interested in whether bullying in school is on the rise. Surprisingly, however, few studies have investigated the longitudinal pattern ofbullying in school. Olweus (1991b) found that, in Norway, bullying in school is more seriousin form and more often in frequency now than a decade ago. In the US, 25 per cent of studentsin Grade 12 were threatened by individuals without a weapon in 1992 in comparison to 19 percent in 1980 (Johnston et al., 1993). Speci cally, Johnston et al. (1993) reported that from 1980to 1985 there was a rapid growth of bullying in school and then the gure remained stable from1986 to 1993. More recently, Winters (1997) documented that bullying, including verbalintimidation, has increased over the past three years in Pennsylvania schools which he claimedmirror schools in the rest of the US. More important, the increase of bullying incidents isuniversal, regardless of school locations and school sizes (Winters, 1997).


So far, we have identified the critical elements in the definition of bullying. The basicelements include repetition, intention and multiple forms. Different de nitions are a majorreason for the variation in research results reported in the literature. Nevertheless, even withdifferent de nitions, researchers agree that bullying in school is a serious, widespread socialproblem. `Bullying may be the most prevalent form of violence in the schools and the formthat is likely to affect the greatest number of students (Batsche and Knoff, 1994, p. 166).

CONSEQUENCES OF BULLYING

Bullying in school has devastating effects on students, and it often leads to violent and disastrousconsequences for both victims and offenders (Hazler, 1994). Bullying is increasingly seen as aneffective precursor to more serious aggressive behaviours (Farrington, 1991; Lochman, 1992;Oliver et al., 1994; Olweus, 1991a; 1991b; 1993a; 1994; Pulkkinen and Pitkanen, 1993). Eronand Huesmann (1984) reported in a 22-year longitudinal study of 8 year-old bullies that mostof them had at least one criminal record in their adulthood. Eron et al. (1987) followed bulliesidenti ed early in school and found that 25 per cent had a criminal record by the age of 30.Olweus (1994) showed that 60 per cent of bullies in Grades 6 to 9 had been arrested at leastonce and 35 per cent to 40 per cent had been arrested three or more times by the age of 24.

On the other hand, victims of bullying typically respond with: (a) avoidance behaviours (suchas skipping school and staying away from certain places in school); (b) a decline in academicperformance; (c) a loss of self-esteem; and (d) in extreme cases, running away, committingsuicide and killing bullies (e.g. Batsche and Knoff, 1994; Boulton and Underwood, 1992;Greenbaum, 1988; Kochenderfer and Ladd, 1996; Slee, 1994). Speci cally, Gilmartin (1987)reported that even victims of mild bullying consider school an unpleasant place. Slee (1994)stated that 1`0% of victims reported actually staying away from school to avoid bullying while29% had thought of doing so (p. 98). Victims of bullying may lose interest in learning andexperience a drop in academic grades because their attention is distracted from learning(Anderson, 1982 cited in Hoover et al., 1992; Besag, 1989; Olweus, 1993a). For example,Olweus (1978) found that male victims of bullying have lower academic grades than their peers.Hazler et al. (1992) found that 9 in 10 victims of bullying experienced a decline in academicgrades.

Children victimized by bullies typically suffer from physical and psychological distress (Besag,1989; Olweus, 1993a). Victims of bullying in childhood tend to have low self-concept andexperience depression in adulthood (Olweus, 1993b). They often experience greater degreesof fear, anxiety, guilt, shame, helplessness and depression than children who are not bullied(Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Hoover et al., 1993; Randall, 1997; Slee, 1994; Whitney andSmith, 1993). Bullying events have long-lasting effects on victims (e.g. Lampert, 1997). Forexample, the loss of self-esteem may last long into the victims adult life (e.g. Boulton andUnderwood, 1992; Olweus, 1993a). Gilmartin (1987) studied ` love-shy male adults and foundthat most of them were bullied as children.

Victims of bullying often bring home their frustrations in school and lash out at their parentswho unfortunately are likely unaware of their children s victimization in school (Ambert, 1994).As a result, family relationships are likely to deteriorate. Eventually, society in general suffersfrom bullying (Farrington, 1991). Results of several longitudinal studies indicate that youngbullies take their social problems with them into adulthood and most importantly they pass theirsocial problems on to a new generation (e.g. Farrington, 1991; Serbin et al., 1991). Because


aggression has been shown to be stable across time, some young bullies are likely, later on, toengage in criminal activities (Farrington, 1991). Former bullies are also likely to bully or abusetheir spouses and children, which creates the cycle of domestic violence and encourages newgenerations of aggressive children (Farrington, 1991).

CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLIES AND VICTIMS

Characteristics of bullies

Olweus (1991a; 1991b) described bullies as impulsive, aggressive, dominative, non-empathetic,and physically strong. Hoover and Juul (1993) added that they have a positive attitude towardinstrumental violence and a favourable self-image. Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Pakasiahti (1999)characterized permanently aggressive offenders, in both childhood and adolescence, as havingaggressive strategies of problem solving and as lacking constructive alternatives of problemsolving.

Bullies are from families in which parents: are authoritarian (preferring physical means ofdiscipline); are often hostile and rejecting; are inconsistent in their parenting (being bothrejecting and permissive); are poor social problem-solvers; and emphasize striking back at minorprovocation (see Batsche and Knoff, 1994). Oliver et al. (1994) added other family characteristicsof bullies as nancial and social problems, cold emotional environment, lack of family structure,social isolation, parental con ict and poor child management skills (reinforcing aggression andfailing to reward, often even punishing, non-aggressive, prosocial behaviours).

Although most bullies do not like school, their academic performance is not necessarilybelow other students (Rigby and Slee, 1991). Therefore, bullying behaviours are not likely tobe a consequence of poor grades and academic failure in school (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994).Rigby and Slee (1991) also concluded that bullies do not have lower self-esteem than otherchildren. In fact, Greenbaum (1988) suggested that bullies feeling of success is effectivelystrengthened through both positive reinforcement, such as goal attainment, and negativereinforcement, such as the removal of threat, which makes them gain stronger self-conceptconsistently.

Sutton et al. (1999a) indicated that successful bullies have sound social cognition and mindskills to manipulate and organize victims; they are often skillful in in icting suffering in subtlebut damaging manners, avoiding being detected as bullies. These researchers argued that such skills are particularly useful for the ringleader bullies and in the indirect forms of bullyingin which females more frequently engage. Sutton et al. (1999b) found superior performance ofbullies on a set of tasks distinguishing between cognitive skills and emotional understanding totheir victims. They suggested that bullies with superior mind skills to their victims can oftensucceed in their bullying attempts. Kaukiainen et al. (1999) studied the roles of social intelligencein three types of bullying behaviours: indirect, physical and verbal, and they concluded thatindirect bullying offenders have signi cantly more social intelligence than their victims acrossall three age groups examined (10, 12 and 14 year-old children).

Berthold (1996) described characteristics of bullies in Grades 4 to 6 in detail they tend tosmoke and drink, cheat on tests, bring weapons to school, and are home without adultsupervision for more than two hours after school each day. Bullies never admit that victims areweaker than they are, and they believe that they act because they are provoked (Boulton andUnderwood, 1992; Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). Bullies are often overly sensitive, considering


normal actions of others as hostile and provocative (Lochman, 1992). Olweus (1991a; 1993a;1994) found that bullies are moderately popular with their peers in elementary school. Evenwhen their popularity starts to drop in junior high school, bullies are still more popular thantheir victims (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). Bullies usually search for victims similar to themin age or younger than they are. For example, more than half of children in the lower gradesare bullied by children older than they are, whereas children in the upper grades are bullied bychildren at the same age (Boulton and Underwood, 1992; Olweus, 1991a).

Among students aged 4 to 14, those in Grades 5 and 6 are more likely to be involved inbullying others (Charach et al., 1995). In general, Branwhite (1994) reported more incidentsof bullying in secondary school than in elementary school (see also Winters, 1997). Therefore,bullies tend to bully more when they grow older, but bullying often takes the form of verbalabuse. There is some evidence now that when bullies grow older, they rely less on direct,physical bullying, but verbal bullying remains consistently high over time (Boulton andUnderwood, 1992; Perry et al., 1988). Rigby (1997) reported an interesting quadraticrelationship in terms of attitudes toward bullying, beliefs about bullying, and bullying behavioursamong children from ages 9 to 18. Both male and female bullies have increased their engagementin bullying behaviours with the increase in age from 9 to 16 and they have displayed attitudesand beliefs increasingly supportive of bullying behaviours. After the age of 16, however,attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours associated with bullying all become moderate among children.

Characteristics of vict im s

Olweus (1978) classi ed victims into two groups. The passive group contains victims who areanxious, insecure, cautious, sensitive and defenceless, whereas the provocative group containsvictims who are quick-tempered, hyperactive, anxious, and defensive (Bernstein and Watson,1997; Olweus, 1991a; 1991b). Perry et al. (1988) presented a similar idea with different terms:low-aggressive victims and high-aggressive victims. Research studies are inconsistent regardingthe distribution of victims. For example, Olweus (1984) found that less than one in ve victimsis provocative, whereas Perry et al. (1988) reported that there are roughly equal numbers of low- and high-aggressive victims. Passive victims are lonely and abandoned without friends inschool (Olweus, 1978). Passive male victims are physically weak and psychologically sensitive,often have close and positive relationship with their parents (especially mothers), and are seenby teachers as being overly protected by their parents (Olweus, 1978).

Perry et al. (1988) also took a slightly different, more outcome-oriented (instead ofpersonality-oriented as discussed above) standpoint to categorize victims into three hetero-geneous groups on the basis of three critical elements of bullying: victimization, aggression and peer rejection. The rst group is characterized as victimized/rejected, which essentiallyresembles the passive group in Olweus (1978). The second group is characterized as aggressive/rejected, which essentially re ects the provocative group in Olweus (1978). The third groupis characterized as victimized/aggressive/rejected, which is a unique group in that children inthis group may bully weaker children while being victims of bullying themselves.

Low self-esteem and high social anxiety are identi ed as major characteristics of bullyingvictims who tend to perceive themselves as stupid and unattractive (e.g. Hoover and Juul, 1993;Lane, 1989; Slee, 1994). Speci cally, fear of negative evaluation involving peers is a signi cantcharacteristic of victims for both males and females in general, and social distress and socialavoidance for females in particular (Slee, 1994). Although victims appear to long for social


approval (Troy and Sroufe, 1987), they rarely initiate prosocial behaviours in their interactionwith others (Bernstein and Watson, 1997). Perry et al. (1988) found that males with lowerintelligence are more likely to be victims of bullying. Roland (1989) also suggested that victimsare less intelligent than non-victims.

Victims of bullying are usually physically weaker than their bullies (Olweus, 1978). Slee(1994) stated that ` victimization is associated with poor physical, social, and psychological well-being in primary school children (p. 100). Members of the Association for Stammerers in GreatBritain indicate that their stammer is the major reason for being bullied in school (Mooney andSmith, 1995). On the other hand, some researchers argue that apart from being physicallyweaker, other physical characteristics are a much less important cause of bullying (e.g. Olweus,1991a; 1993a; 1994), although any physical disadvantage is used against the victim once the bully nds the victim (Besag, 1989).

Recently, some researchers suggested that victims of bullying lack skills in emotionalregulation, a process facilitating coping behaviours that ease the stress of negative emotionsfrom frustration, failure, and trauma (Cicchetti et al. 1995, cited in Mahady-Wilton, 1997).Mahady-Wilton (1997) classi ed coping styles of bullying into problem-solving coping thatdeescalates and resolves bullying episodes and reactive coping that perpetuates and escalatesbullying episodes. Victims of bullying most often choose the reactive coping style (Mahady-Wilton, 1997).

Troy and Sroufe (1987) found that victims of bullying tend to have inconsistent attachmentpatterns with their parents who demonstrate both responsiveness and rejection. They arguedthat the responsiveness keeps children from giving up on their relationship with parents, andthe rejection teaches them how to be victims. This explains why victims often continue to makeineffective attempts to interact with their bullies after being victimized (Troy and Sroufe, 1987).Champion (1997) concluded that, in general, children who lack support in interpersonalrelationship are likely to be bullied.

Roberts and Coursel (1996) believed that victims often do not report bullying incidents,providing two reasons: fear of retaliation and experience of inadequate support from adultswhen they do ask for help. Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) reported that 40 per cent of primaryschool children and 60 per cent of junior high school children indicated that educators tooklittle action to help them when they reported bullying incidents (see also Boulton andUnderwood, 1992; Hazler et al., 1992; Hoover et al., 1992). Sometimes, victims of bullyingreceive even less attention from educators than their bullies (Boulton and Underwood, 1992).

Younger children are more likely to be victimized. Olweus (1991a) reported that on average 11 per cent of students are bullied in Grades 2 to 6 in comparison to 5 per cent in Grades 7 to 9. He then suggested that the youngest children in school are at most risk of beingbullied. Victims seem to have a tendency to be victimized over time. Olweus (1991a; 1993a;1994) found that male victims at age 13 are still victims at age 16. Slee (1994) reported that 28 per cent of victims are bullied for a period varying from a few months to more than half ayear. Boulton and Underwood (1992) found that many victims are bullied for two consecutiveschool terms. Perry et al. (1988) concluded that once becoming a victim, the student is likelyto be consistently bullied for a period of three months, and that a` stable propensity to bevictimized is established by the time children reach middle school (p. 182).


Gender differences

In general, males are more likely to get involved in bullying others than females (e.g. Branwhite,1994; Charach et al., 1995). Males are also more likely than females to target the same victimrepeatedly (Craig, 1993). Males bully both males and females, but females often bully femalesonly (see Clarke and Kiselica, 1997). Olweus (1991a) reported that 60 per cent of female victimsin Grades 5 to 7 are bullied by male bullies, and an additional 15 per cent to 20 per cent arebullied by males and females acting together. Overall, 80 per cent of male victims are bulliedby males (Olweus, 1991a). Boulton and Underwood (1992) found that male bullies accountfor 65 per cent of bullying incidents, female bullies account for 15 per cent, and another 19 percent of bullying is done by males and females acting together. Lane (1989) estimated that malestend to bully more than females by a ratio of 3:1. Others argue that females are just as likely asmales to get involved in bullying others if considering the multiple forms that bullying takessuch as social ostracism in which females more frequently engage (see Siann et al., 1993). Femalebullies, however, often do not see social ostracism as committing bullying (Lagerspetz andBjorkvist, 1994).

Male bullies are three to four times more likely than female bullies to use direct, physicalabuse (Eron et al., 1987), whereas female bullies are more likely to use indirect, verbal abuse(Hoover et al., 1992). Similarly, labelling physical attacks as direct bullying and social isolationand exclusion from the group as indirect bullying, Olweus (1991a) indicated that males are morelikely to engage in direct bullying whereas females in indirect bullying (see also Campbell,1993; Maccoby, 1986). Males and females bully for different reasons. `Bullying for males ismore likely to be part of power-based social relationships and for females af liation activitiesare more frequently the source of bullying activities (Lane, 1989, p. 213).

Crick and Grotpeter (1995) as well as Crick et al. (1997) distinguished between relationallyand overtly aggressive behaviours, and found that females are signi cantly more aggressiverelationally than males. Crick et al. (1997) demonstrated that this gender difference appears in as early as preschool age. However, Crick and Grotpeter (1995) and Crick et al. (1997)reported that both relationally aggressive males and females share common problems in social-psychological adjustment (e.g. loneliness, depression, isolation and peer rejection) (seealso Crick and Dodge, 1994). Keltikangas-Jarvinen and Pakasiahti (1999) emphasized the relationship between aggressive behaviours and aggressive strategies of problem solvingamong children. They found that this relationship is stronger among females than among males.

Salmivalli et al. (1996) distinguished differential participant roles in bullying such as victim,bully, bystander, reinforcer of the bully, helper of the bully and defender of the victim. Theirstudy indicated signi cant gender differences in participant roles in bullying. While males aremore often in the roles of bully, reinforcer and helper, females more frequently play the rolesof bystander and defender.

The victim bully cycle

Floyd (1985) and Greenbaum (1988) have labelled bullying as an i`ntergenerational problem. That is, bullies in school are often victims at home (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988;Horne and Socherman, 1996). These researchers imply a victim offender cycle which is quitecommon in social violence. Perry et al. (1988) made this point more explicit. They studied


the relationship between victimization and aggression, claiming that the two elements areorthogonal. That is, some of the most extreme victims of bullying are also some of the mostaggressive bullies.

BYSTANDERS OF BULLYING IN SCHOOL

Interest has been increasing among researchers to study and understand bystanders of bullyingin school, with an emphasis on their reactions to bullying activities. This type of study is oftenconducted in a social context of peer processes. For example, OConnell et al. (1999) examinedthe peer processes that occur during bullying episodes from the social learning perspective. Intheir study, peers viewed bullying and each one was coded for: actively joining the bully;passively reinforcing the bully; and actively intervening on behalf of the victim. With data fromprimary school students (Grades 1 to 6), they reported that 54 per cent of peers reinforce bullies(i.e. passively watching bullies bullying), 21 per cent of peers model bullies (i.e. actively joiningbullies), and 25 per cent of peers intervene on behalf of victims. OConnell et al. (1999) alsoreported gender differences among bystanders of bullying. Older males (in Grades 4 to 6) aremore likely to actively join bullies than both younger males (in Grades 1 to 3) and older females.Younger and older females are more likely to intervene on behalf of victims than older males.These researchers believed that peers play an important role in the bullying process around theschool playground.

Salmivalli (1999) argued that studying bystanders in bullying in school is important giventhat peers are involved in bullying activities in different ways. Furthermore, she suggested thatbullying in school should be studied in the social context of the peer group, viewing bullyingas a group phenomenon that is largely enabled and sustained by peers in school (see alsoSalmivalli et al., 1998). Like OConnell et al. (1999), Salmivalli (1999) showed that peers takeon different participant roles in bullying, such as bystanders, reinforcers, helpers and defenders,and peer actions are powerful moderators of bullying in school. Children are reasonably awareof their participant roles in bullying, although they tend to underestimate the results of theirparticipant roles in active bullying (Salmivalli et al., 1996).

SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS OF BULLYING

School characteristics are often classi ed into context and climate (see Willms, 1992). Schoolcontext includes characteristics such as school size, student teacher ratio, teacher experienceand characteristics of student intakes. School climate portrays the inner working of school life,such as how students and staff are organized for instruction, the formal and informal rules thatgovern school operation, the nature of interactions between students and staff, and the attitudes,values and expectations of students, parents and teachers.

Surprisingly few studies have examined the climate characteristics of schools with morebullying incidents. The special issue of the Journal of Adolescence (vol. 22) was devoted to peerinterventions for school violence. Many articles in that issue (e.g. Naylor and Cowie, 1999)considered the presence of a peer support system in a school as a positive climate characteristicof the school and showed the importance and effectiveness of the peer support system that iscapable of improving the other aspects of school climate and reducing the incidence of bullyingin school (see also Carr, 1988).


A limited number of studies have investigated school contextual characteristics of bullying.Overall, Winters (1997) showed that in the US, large schools in many states have more incidentsof school violence. But, Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) and Whitney and Smith (1993) foundthat school size and class size are not related specifically with bullying in some Europeancountries. Neither is the ethnic structure of a school (Whitney and Smith, 1993). Furthermore,bullying does not seem to be linked with school location. Olweus (1991a; 1993a; 1994) showedthat bullying is just as likely in the rest of the country as in the three major Norwegian cities.Hoover et al. (1992) studied students in small, homogenous Midwestern towns in the US,reporting that 72 per cent of girls and 81 per cent of boys are victims of bullying. Overall,Winters (1997) concluded that school violence is no longer just an urban problem. As a matterof fact, some types of school violence are growing faster in rural and suburban schools than inurban schools (Winters, 1997). But, Whitney and Smith (1993) did report a signi cant, negativecorrelation at the high school level between socioeconomic status (SES) of the families that aschool serves and the frequencies of bullying incidents in the school.

SOCIAL TOLERANCE OF BULLYING

Society in general seems to tolerate bullying behaviours among school-age children. Horne andSocherman (1996) argue that many adults either do not know how to deal with bullying orfear that the problem may escalate if they do intervene. Although this situation may partlyexplain the reason for the often salient treatment of bullying by society, there is a historicaltolerance of bullying behaviours in society that bears deeper implications.

Oliver et al. (1994) asserted that there are socially approved attitudes and values towardbullying. Ambert (1994) attributed social tolerance of bullying to that: (a) bullying is usuallydone in a private way without the presence of supervising adults; (b) many adults hold the viewthat children are ` social innocents ; and (c) many child welfare professionals overemphasize therole of the family, particularly the mother, as the primary in uence on children, ignoring thevital importance of peer in uence.

Some researchers argue that gender stereotypes play a role in social tolerance of bullying.Eron and Husemann (1984) believed that parents want boys to be more aggressive than girls.The mentality, l`et boys be boys, often in uences adults judgement when males demonstrateaggressive behaviours (Eron and Husemann, 1984). Society at large tolerates male bullies becauseof the public attitudes of power and masculinity. Most cultures treat physical aggression as amale trait. With expectation and encouragement, many adults regard aggressive behaviours inmales as normal but aggressive behaviours in females as abnormal (Eron and Huesmann, 1984;Lagerspetz and Bjorkvist, 1994).

Most researchers agree with the role of the media in the promotion of aggressive behavioursin children. Eron and Huesmann (1984) have noticed that in almost all movies and televisionprogrammes, males rely on violent conflicts to resolve substantial issues in life. The mediaportrays aggressive behaviours as both sexy and exciting and as the only effective way to takecontrol of ones life (Remboldt, 1994a). For example, heroes on the screen usually achievedesirable goals, win beauties of interest and gain adulation from peers by means of physicalcon icts and other coercive techniques (Eron and Husemann, 1984). The media also spreadsthe notion of a`n eye for an eye for resolving bullying problems. For example, Oliver et al.(1994) found that some children s books advocate the use of `violence (i.e. hitting the bully)as a way to handle being bullied.


COMBATING BULLYING IN SCHOOL

In general, Carter and Stewin (1999) have summarized factors that contribute to school violence as: (a) societal factors such as media portrayal of violence, gender roles and sociallearning experiences; (b) community factors such as separation of school and community,poverty and unemployment and lack of `belonging to society; (c) school factors such asexpectations, rules and forms of discipline; (d) family factors such as family violence, abuse andneglect; (e) relationship factors such as relationship between parents, teachers and students,situational determinants and peer group membership; and (f) personal factors such as socialproblem solving skills, genetic in uences and developmental factors. These factors provide ageneral guidance for prevention and intervention programmes to reduce school violence(including bullying). The following discussion focuses more on speci c measures for combatingbullying in school.

Prevention

There is little discussion on the prevention of bullying in the literature. Most discussion centresaround the intervention and treatment of bullying. This may be due to the overlap betweenprevention and intervention. Studies have shown that aggressive behaviours tend to be so stableover time that early signs of bullying may predict later aggression (e.g. Farrington, 1991; Lane,1989; Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994). From our perspective, this consistent nding is the singlemost important element that leads to effective prevention programmes. It should alert educatorsto the need to develop prevention programmes for students who demonstrate early signs ofaggression.

Intervention

The fact that bullying happens more often in school, rather than on the way to or from school,indicates that schools need to play a more proactive role in eliminating bullying (e.g. Olweus,1991a; 1993a; 1994; Whitney et al., 1992). The place where most bullying incidents take place is the school playground, particularly in junior high schools (e.g. Hoover and Juul, 1993;Sharp and Smith, 1991; Whitney et al., 1992). School staff need to realize and emphasize thelong-term commitment if they are determined to make a sustained effort in reducing bullyingin school (Eslea and Smith, 1998). There is a common belief that positive school environmentdisallows bullying and harassment to ourish (e.g. Hazler, 1994). Effective schools encouragestudents to have positive interactions with teachers, and set up tougher sanctions against bullying(Barone, 1997). In general, tougher discipline, intensive supervision, counselling for students,and training for teachers are often considered effective remedies for bullying (see Barone, 1997).In addition, Banks (1997) has put together curriculum resources, videos, posters, and children sbooks to help school staff combat bullying in school.

Batsche and Knoff (1994) summarized strategies for combating bullying in school as: (a) promoting facts, not myths, about bullying; (b) dispelling beliefs about aggressive behaviours;(c) conducting a school-wide assessment of bullying; (d) developing a student code of conduct;(e) providing counselling services for both bullies and victims; (f) involving parents in theintervention process; (g) implementing intervention strategies speci c to aggressive children;


and (h) establishing a system of accountability and evaluation. Hazler (1994) presented someuseful ideas especially for classroom teachers to help reduce bullying in school, including: donot look the other way; deal with the problem directly; get parents involved; create appropriateactivities; develop a classroom action plan; hold regular discussions with students; teachcooperation among students; and consider professional counselling if necessary.

Some psychometric instruments are available to assess bullying in school. Olweus (1978;1984) developed a questionnaire that directly assesses bullying in school. Perry et al. (1988)developed a Peer Nomination Inventory (PNI) to assess the nature and extent of bullyingwithin a student group. Some new effort has taken place to develop more sensitive measuresof bullying behaviours in several research initiatives funded by the European Union to addressthe issue of school violence such as the DFE Shef eld Anti-Bullying Project (see Eslea andSmith, 1998). Some instruments are also available to measure attitudes and beliefs about bullyingin school (see Rigby, 1997). Once victims and bullies are identi ed, treatment techniques suchas behaviour management, self-control strategies, social skills training, information processing,cognitive perspective taking are considered effective (see Coie et al., 1991). For example,Cunningham et al. (1998) observed that the student mediation program effectively reducesphysically aggressive behaviours around the school playground from 51 per cent to 65 per cent,and that the positive impact of this feasible, acceptable programme sustained for at least one yearamong students.

The whole-school approach has been suggested in many studies as the most effective wayto combat bullying in school. For example, Slee and Rigby (1994) presented the PEACE(Policy, Education, Action, Coping, Evaluation) approach. Olweus (1993a) described anintervention programme that can be implemented at school, classroom and individual levels,including: (a) the use of questionnaire to help adults and students become aware of the extentof the problem and help justify intervention efforts; (b) the use of a parental awareness campaignto get parents involved in the intervention efforts; (c) the development of classroom rules againstbullying; and (d) the development of other components of anti-bullying programmes such asindividual counselling with bullies and victims, implementation of cooperative learning activitiesto reduce social isolation and improve peer relationship and adult supervision.

In their review, Clarke and Kiselica (1997) focused on a systematic, school-wide interventionapproach which includes several components: (a) a philosophical shift on the issue of bullyingamong school personnel; (b) educating students, teachers, administrators and parents; (c)consistent school policies; (d) close adult supervision; (e) early intervention; (f) school-wideassessment; and (g) supportive training and counselling. Intervention programmes integratingthese components have shown signi cant effects with bullying incidents reduced from 20 percent (Arora, 1994) to 50 per cent (Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994) after two years.

Educators often spend the rst year developing policies and procedures and in establishingprogrammes of education and training for staff and students. This is a preparation, rather than intervention period, thus often only modest decline in bullying activities appears. Withsuf cient preparation, educators emphasize intervention in the second year, achieving favourableresults, and substantial decline in bullying behaviours are observable by the end of the secondyear. This process does indicate that combating bullying in school is a long-term effort (see also Eslea and Smith, 1998), requiring at least two years for intervention programmes to beeffective.

The recent, pioneering work of Salmivalli (1999) on the participant roles in bullying hasparticular implications for the intervention and treatment of bullying. Her work is a veryimportant addition to strategies for combating bullying in school. She argued that the power


of the peer group should be fully recognized and utilized to combat bullying in school. Sherecommended that school staff target the whole peer group rather than individuals in theireffort to end bullying in school, arguing that it is peers who, after adult encouragement andtraining, take action against bullying. Peers should be encouraged to take action against bullyingboth informally in their spontaneous everyday interactions with others and formally as peercounsellors (Salmivalli, 1999).

Counselling

School counsellors play a particularly signi cant role in reducing bullying in school (e.g. Clarkeand Kiselica, 1997; Roberts and Coursol, 1996). Counsellors have the advantage to workindividually with students involved in bullying. This gives counsellors additional t`ools apartfrom strategies for combating bullying discussed above. For example, some children s literatureaddresses the problems of bullying and the strategies of coping, and can be incorporated intocounselling practices (Oliver et al., 1994). Banks (1997) has provided a comprehensive list ofchildren s books and videos that actively promote prosocial behaviours in school (see also Sharpand Smith, 1991). Kellam et al. (1994) encouraged school counsellors to focus on children inGrades 1 to 3 and students in the rst year of middle school because aggressive behaviours aremost likely to take shape during those periods.

Social skills training in small groups and classroom discussion about bullying are othereffective counselling strategies (Charach et al., 1995; Goldstein et al., 1980). Keltikangas-Jarvinenand Pakasiahti (1999) considered modifying children s strategies of social problem solving as an effective intervention of aggressive behaviours such as bullying. Bullying also offers a goodopportunity to teach students non-con ict resolution skills (Briggs, 1996). Hoover and Juul(1993) suggested: counselling for families of bullies to increase family closeness and to developstructures and limits on aggressive behaviours; and counselling for families of victims to helpincrease the separate identities of family members (helping family members to use ` I statementsrather than one member speaking for another) as a way to avoid family over-involvement inbullying incidents (see also Oliver et al., 1994).

As discussed earlier, peer rejection is one of the major characteristics of victims of bullying.The effectiveness of remedies associated with peer rejection depends on how well school staff can effectively identify the type of rejection that victims are experiencing (Perry et al.,1988). `Clearly, it is necessary to understand the type of victim one is working with in orderto implement successful interventions (Batsche and Knoff, 1994, p. 168). For passive victims,strategies such as assertiveness training and a stronger visual pro le are recommended (Batscheand Knoff, 1994); whereas for provocative victims, strategies such as interpreting hostile bias and assertive/less aggressive solutions to threat are recommended (Dodge et al., 1990). The ndings of Crick and Grotpeter (1995) and Crick et al. (1997) imply that school counsellorsneed to pay close attention to the social-psychological adjustment of victims. Kochenderfer andLadd (1996) reported that the duration of victimization experiences of children is related to thedegree of their school adjustment problems. Cowies (1998) study advised school counsellorson the bene ts and disadvantages of using peer-support programmes for victims.

School counsellors need to be sensitive to individual background characteristics of studentsattending counselling programmes. For example, Osterman et al. (1997) studied three non-aggressive con ict resolutions among students known as constructive resolution, interventionas a third party in a con ict between others, and withdrawal. They found that peaceful con ict


resolution behaviours vary signi cantly across student gender, age, and ethnicity. Kochenderferand Ladd (1997) found that victims have differential reactions to bullies conditional on thevictimization process (either reduced or continued) that victims are in, indicating that schoolcounsellors need to be sensitive to the differential stages of victimization in supporting andcounselling victims.

Salmivalli (1999), in her examination of participant roles of peers in bullying, argued thatthe focus of school counselling in bullying should be shifted from supporting victims to workingwith peers in other participant roles. She believed that peer intervention has the utmost powerto put bullying in school to the end. Naylor and Cowie (1999) also encouraged schoolcounsellors to develop effective peer support systems and make full use of these systems toimprove school social environment and combat bullying in school (see also Carr, 1988).

Clarke and Kiselica (1997) cautioned school counsellors of the possible resistance to changefrom some fellow staff who tolerate bullying because of various social stereotypes. Neese (1989)encouraged school counsellors to conduct specially designed in-service training to help schoolpersonnel establish a positive attitude toward the problem of bullying. This need is real, andmany things need to be done. For example, many school principals, particularly elementaryschool principals, do not have adequate knowledge of the law regarding student violence(Pauken, 1997). Baker (1996) presented many strategies to build a power base for change andcounselling and for coping with problems associated with social reforms in school. Clarke andKiselica (1997) emphasized the importance for school counsellors to obtain support from schooladministrators for any change initiatives. The professional development of school counsellorshas also been noted, such as training in crisis intervention (Roberts and Coursol, 1996).

EXPLAINING BULLYING IN SCHOOL

Power-based theory

Some researchers believe that the major mechanism of bullying is control and power, as Batscheand Knoff (1994) stated that `bullying is all about control (p. 167). For example, Hoover andJuul (1993) found that bullies have a strong desire to dominate others. Olweus (1991a; 1991b)described one of the major characteristics of bullies as dominative. Most bullies want to feelpowerful over others and to be ` cool before peers (Charach et al., 1995). Desire for power andcontrol has been particularly identi ed as the main reason for boys to bully others (Lane, 1989).Advocates of this power-based theory argue that bullies desire for power or control is oftenstrengthened by various social stereotypes about bullying including the negative reinforcementof the media (see the earlier discussion on social tolerance of bullying).

Social learning theory

In contrast to the power-based theory, other researchers insist that bullying is a learned socialbehaviour, more so than a desire for domination. Family also plays a critical part in children stendency to bully others (Oliver et al., 1994). Parents negativism and particularly the use ofpower assertive discipline techniques in parenting teach children the way to deal with otherpersons (Slee and Rigby, 1994). Schwartz et al. (1997) studied the early family experiences ofboys who later become both aggressive and bullied in school. They found that aggressive victims


often experience more punitive, hostile, and abusive treatment at home. Many studies agreethat bullies in school are often victims at home (Floyd, 1985; Greenbaum, 1988; Horne andSocherman, 1996).

The explanation of the above bilateral relation may well come from social learning theory(e.g. Lorber et al., 1984; Matson, 1989; Sobsey, 1994). For example, Lorber et al. (1984)described the role of social learning theory in the victim offender cycle of abuse. They foundthat abuse victims are more likely to be violent, aggressive and disruptive than non-abusecontrols. This situation is considered as a result of socially learned behaviour. This helps explainthe victim offender cycle in bullying, as mentioned in Perry et al. (1988) that some of the mostextreme victims of bullying are also some of the most aggressive bullies.

Few studies have comprehensively adopted the standpoint of social learning theory tounderstand bullying in school. For example, few studies of aggression have tested the hypothesisthat outcome expectations and outcome values independently predict individual behaviours asstated in social learning theory. Recently, Hall et al. (1998) were able to show that outcomeexpectations, outcome values and their interactions are differentially related to aggression,indicating that the relationship is often outcome speci c in terms of aggression.

Theory of m ind skills

Recently, the stereotyped view of bullies has been challenged (e.g. Kaukiainen et al., 1999;Sutton et al., 1999a; 1999b). The popular social skills de cit model portrays bullies as powerfulbut ` oa sh individuals who have little understanding of others. Therefore, bullying behaviourshave been seen as a kind of careless exercise of power of bullies on often innocent victims. Suttonet al. (1999a; 1999b) challenged this model by showing that bullies often possess good socialcognition and mind skills. Kaukiainen et al. (1999) have provided supporting evidence thatbullies often have superior social intelligence to their victims. Therefore, these researchers seebullies as individuals who skillfully exercise their mind skills to manipulate and organize theirvictims. In icting suffering on victims in a subtle but damaging way without being caught asbullies becomes a constant challenge that thrills bullies to exercise their mind skills and todevelop new ones.

REVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODS

Quantitative methods

The literature on bullying contains a large number of quantitative studies based on survey data.Survey studies have been a major avenue to examine the extent and impact of bullying inschool. Both descriptive and conventional inferential statistics have been widely used to analysesurvey data on bullying. Many previous studies had large samples of students. It is important toemphasize that given the call for the whole-school intervention, large sample sizes do seemnecessary in bullying studies. The emphasis on the whole-school intervention also dictates theuse of multiple schools in data collection and analysis so that effective school policies andpractices that reduce bullying can be singled out. The analysis of such hierarchical data (studentsnested within schools) can best be accomplished with advanced statistical methods, such ashierarchical linear modelling or multilevel modelling, to be discussed next.


The major limitation in the quantitative research literature on bullying is analytical. Moststudies on bullying recommend intervention programmes to combat bullying in school.However, intervention programmes are usually implemented in organizational settings whichare hierarchically structured, such as students nested within schools. The action of educatorsand administrators at one level of the education system directly affects, and are affected by,schooling processes at other levels. This hierarchical or multilevel nature of educational datahas to be taken into account in data analysis (see Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). By separatingtotal variance according to the hierarchical structure of the data and analysing each componentin relation to others, the multilevel statistical procedure has much better statistical control towarrant more valid policy implications (see Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992). There is a need totake a multilevel perspective to examine the issue of bullying in school.

Qualitative methods

Qualitative research on bullying in school has been focusing on elaborating the experiences ofvictims and bullies in their own words. To achieve this purpose, interviews are commonlyused. One of the typical studies is Kiang and Kaplan (1994) who interviewed adolescentsregarding their feelings and experiences about racial con ict in school. The major disadvantageof conducting interviews in terms of bullying is that some victims nd it dif cult to disclosetheir experiences because of shame and fear of retaliation. Rigby (1995), for example, reportedthat few adolescents appear willing to discuss their bullying experiences publicly withoutreservation. This situation seriously limits data that can be obtained through interviews. A lessthreatening approach is needed that provides leeway for students to describe their experiencesin an anonymous manner. The strategy to have a large number of students write out, ratherthan speak out, their bullying experiences just as they normally do in survey studies is becomingmore effective because it facilitates an aura of safety among students when they provideinformation on bullying. This method certainly calls for a new type of data analysis because the traditional qualitative methods do not apply well to data gathered through the above strategy.

The research method, often referred to as ` concept mapping , is a combination of quantitativeand qualitative methods. Researchers using concept mapping employ phenomenologicalmethods to obtain data and quantitative methods to analyse data. Concept mapping providesobjectivity to qualitative data in that it enables researchers to gain understanding of psychologicalissues and constructs through t`he eyes of the participants rather than the researchers. Thistechnique ensures that the data are sorted by individuals, rather than researchers, therebyreducing the potential bias or subjectivity that usually occurs if researchers sort through data.Furthermore, concept mapping displays results of analysis in a visual manner that can be easilyunderstood by people without statistical background.

Concept mapping, also referred to as ` structural conceptualization, was originally developedfor planning and evaluation (see Trochim, 1989). Basically, it is a set of statistical methods tocluster variables into underlying themes. Many researchers in the area of psychological disordershave successfully utilized concept mapping techniques and have demonstrated that they are apowerful research tool (e.g. Daughtry and Kunkel, 1993; Trochim et al., 1994). The techniqueof concept mapping holds strong promise in the research of bullying in school, and should beconsidered seriously by qualitative researchers in this area.


Further research

Based on our review, we offer some suggestions for further research in the area of bullying. First, the area of school effects on bullying has largely been ` uncharted in the research literature.Some studies have examined the contextual effects of a school (e.g. school size and schoollocation) on bullying (see Olweus, 1991a; 1993a; 1994; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Few studies,however, have investigated the effects of school climate (e.g. discipline climate and parentalinvolvement) on bullying. This is unfortunate because it is climate variables, rather than con-textual variables, that can be directly controlled or manipulated by educators and administrators.Investigations on the effects of school climate on bullying are likely to provide informationleading to changes in school policies and practices that minimize bullying in school.

Second, most `macro-political issues have not been addressed in the literature of bullying.It is warranted that schools alone cannot combat bullying. Students spend a considerable amountof time outside schools. A healthy transition from childhood to adulthood requires considerablesocial support (Hamburg, 1993). However, the neighbourhood and community effects onbullying are largely unknown. For example, are there communities (neighbourhoods) fromwhich students bully less in school? What characteristics of those communities are responsiblefor less bullying incidents? Are poverty and unemployment in the neighbourhood related tobullying incidents in school? Does residential segregation encourage more bullying? What social support for students is needed in communities from which students have more bullyingincidents in school? These and similar questions are important because they lead to improvementin social policies and practices.

The causal relationships between bullying and individual characteristics are under-investigated. For example, as mentioned earlier, boys with close relationships with parents,particularly mothers, are likely to be bullied. Oliver et al. (1994) stated that it is not clear whetherclose relations with parents precede, follow, or both precede and follow victimization. Foranother example, victims of bullying often have poor academic performance, as shown earlier.Poor academic grades may be the reason to be bullied; they may also be the result of beingbullied as argued in Farrington (1991). Until the causal relationships between bullying andindividual characteristics are thoroughly studied, many intervention programmes are likely tobe at least partly ` blind . Finally, some studies also remind researchers that the sources from whichresearchers obtain information on bullying are important in the examination of bullying inschool. For example, Pulkkinen and Pitkanen (1993) demonstrated discrepancies between peernomination and teacher rating of bullying behaviours.

CONCLUSION

There has never been a stronger demand from the public to reduce school violence. Batscheand Knoff (1994) assert that the goal of creating safe schools cannot be achieved unless the issueof bullying is adequately addressed. There is a need for the research community to periodicallyand systematically review existing working knowledge on bullying. The current review af rms,with more recent research ndings, the general conclusions that: (a) bullying is a wide-spreadsocial problem ` that cuts across geographic and socioeconomic boundaries with serious, long-term detrimental effects on both victims and bullies (Clarke and Kiselica, 1997, p. 319); (b)family characteristics affect the development of both bullies and victims; (c) bullies and victimsdemonstrate personal characteristics that can be useful for prevention and intervention


programmes; and (d) combating bullying requires a long-term, whole-school approachinvolving efforts from peers, teachers, parents, administrators and counsellors.

Different from the previous reviews, the current one emphasized the multifacet perspectiveto examine the issue of bullying, paying attention to the structure of determinants of bullyingfrom personal to societal factors. This perspective allowed this review to focus on relationships,such as relationships between bullies and families, schools and society; relationships amongvictims, bullies and bystanders; as well as relationships between counsellors and other schoolstaff in their effort to combat bullying. For example, ndings on victims use of emotionalregulation or coping strategies in their interaction with bullies have been integrated into thecurrent review. The attachment pattern of victims with their parents as this relationship affectsthe victim bully interaction and the participant roles of peers in bullying activities in relationto victims and bullies are other examples.

The multifacet perspective also allowed the current review to propose one of the mostimportant characteristics of bullying the victim bully cycle which has barely been discussedin the literature. Because of the focus of the current review on relationships, some relationship-based theories, such as power (control) theory, social learning theory and theory of mind skillshave been identi ed and adopted to explain the possible mechanism of bullying behaviours,with distinctions between these theories being discussed as well.

The current review paid close attention to the research methods used in previous quantita-tive and qualitative studies. It identified the major methodological limitations in previousquantitative and qualitative research respectively, and it suggested more appropriate advancedmethods for the examination of bullying in both quantitative and qualitative areas. Also, asdiscussed above, the current review attempted to examine the previous research in bullying fromthe multifacet perspective. This examination revealed some major (policy) limitations inprevious research and resulted in several major recommendations for further research on bullyingin school. Overall, the current review has provided a new starting point for researchers to carryon further investigations on bullying in school.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to the reviewer of this paper who played a critical role in shaping ourresearch work. This review paper was substantially enhanced by the many additional referencesprovided by the reviewer. The authors would also like to thank Xiangming Qiu for herassistance in preparing this review paper.

REFERENCES

AMBERT, A. M. (1994). `A qualitative study of peer abuse and its effects: Theoretical and empiricalimplications , Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56, 119-30.

ARORA, C. M. J. (1994). I`s there any point in trying to reduce bullying in secondary schools?,Educational Psychology in Practice, 10, 155 62.

BAKER, S. B. (1996). School counseling for the twenty- rst century, 2nd edn. New York: Merrill.BANKS, R. (1997). `Bullying in schools, ERIC Digest, March.BARONE, F. J. (1997). `Bullying in school, Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 80 2. BATSCHE, G. M. and KNOFF, H. M. (1994). `Bullies and their victims: Understanding a pervasive

problem in the schools, School Psychology Review, 23, 165 74.


BERNSTEIN, J. Y. and WATSON, M. W. (1997). `Children who are targets of bullying , Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 12, 483 98.

BERTHOLD, K. A. (1996). `Bullying: perceptions of students in Grades 4-6 in a mid-sizedMidwestern public school district (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, 1996).Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4265A.

BESAG, V. E. (1989). Bullies and victims in schools. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.BOULTON, M. J. and UNDERWOOD, K. (1992). `Bully/victim problems among middle school

children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 73 87.BRANWHITE, T. (1994). `Bullying and student distress: Beneath the tip of the iceberg , Educational

Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 14, 59 71.BRIGGS, D. (1996). `Turning con icts into learning experiences , Educational Leadership, 54, 60 3.BRYK, A. S. and RAUDENBUSH, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.BUSS, A. H. (1961). The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley.CAMPBELL, A. (1993). Men, women, and aggression. New York: Basic Books.CARR, R. A. (1988). `The city-wide peer counselling program, Children and Youth Services Review,

10, 217 32.CARTER, S. P. and STEWIN, L. L. (1999). `School violence in the Canadian context: An overview

and model for intervention, International Journal of School Violence, 21, 267 277.CARTWRIGHT, N. (1995). `Combating bullying in a secondary school in the United Kingdom,

Journal for a Just and Caring Education, 1, 345 53.COIE, J. D., UNDERWOOD, M. and LOCHMAN, J. E. (1991). `Programmatic intervention with

aggressive children in the school setting. In: RUBIN, I. and PEPLER, D. (Eds) The development andtreatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 389 410.

COWIE, H. (1998). Pèrspectives of teachers and pupils on the experience of peer support againstbullying , Educational Research and Evaluation, 23, 227 38.

CHAMPION, K. M. (1997). `Bullying in middle school: Exploring the individual and interpersonalcharacteristics of the victim (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, 1997), Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 59, 1362A.

CHARACH, A., PEPLER, D., and ZIEGLER, S. (1995). `Bullying at school: A Canadianperspective , Education Canada, 35, 12 18.

CLARKE, E. A. and KISELICA, M. S. (1997). À systemic counseling approach to the problem ofbullying , Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 31, 310 15.

CRAIG, W. M. (1993). `Naturalistic observations of bullies and victims in the school yard (Doctoraldissertation, York University, 1993), Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 4139A.

CRICK, N. R., CASAS, J. and MOSHER, M. (1997). `Relational and overt aggression in preschool ,Developmental Psychology, 33, 579 88.

CRICK, N. R. and DODGE, K. A. (1994). À review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children s social adjustment , Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74 101.

CRICK, N R. and GROTPETER, J. K. (1995). `Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment , Child Development, 66, 710 22.

CUNNINGHAM, C., CUNNINGHAM, L., MARTORELLI, V., TRAN, A., YOUNG, J. andZACHARIAS, R. (1998). `The effects of primary division, student-mediated con ict resolutionprograms on playground aggression, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 653 62.

DAUGHTRY, D. and KUNKEL, M. A. (1993). E`xperience of depression in college students: Aconcept map, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 316-323.

DODGE, K. A., COIE, J. D., PETTIT, G. S. and PRICE, J. M. (1990). `Peer status and aggression inboys groups: Developmental and contextual analyses, Child Development, 61, 1289 1309.

ERON, L. D. and HUESMANN, L. R. (1984). `The control of aggressive behavior by changes inattitudes, values, and the conditions of learning. In: BLANCHARD, R. J. and BLANCHARD, D.C. (Eds) Advances in the study of aggression, Vol. 1, pp. 139 71. Orlando, FL: Academic.

ERON, L. D., HUSEMANN, L. R., DUBOW, E., ROMANOFF, R. and YARMEL, P. W. (1987).


`Aggression and its correlates over 22 years. In: CROWELL, D. H. and EVANS, I. M. (Eds)Childhood aggression and violence: Sources of in uence, prevention, and control. New York: Plenum, pp. 249 62.

ESLEA, M. and SMITH, P. K. (1998). `The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primaryschools, Educational Research, 40, 203 18.

FARRINGTON, D. P. (1991). `Childhood aggression and adult violence: Early precursors and laterlife outcomes. In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhoodaggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 5 29.

FLOYD, N. M. (1985). `Pick on somebody your own size! Controlling victimization , Pointer, 29, 9 17.

GILMARTIN, B. G. (1987). `Peer group antecedents of severe love-shyness in males, Journal ofPersonality, 55, 467 89.

GOLDSTEIN, A. P., SPRAFKIN, R. P., GERSHAW, J. J. and KLEIN, P. (1980). Skillstreaming theadolescent. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

GREENBAUM, S. (1988). `What can we do about schoolyard bullying? , Principal, 67, 2, 21 4.HALL, J., HERZBERGER, S. and SKOWRONSKI, K. (1998). `Outcome expectancies and outcome

values as predictors of children s aggression, Aggressive Behavior, 24, 439 54. HAMBURG, D. A. (1993). `The opportunities of early adolescence , Teachers College Record, 94,

466 71.

HAZLER, R. J. (1994). `Bullying breeds violence. You can stop it! , Learning, 22, 6, 38 41.HAZLER, R. J., HOOVER, J. H. and OLIVER, R. (1992). `What kids say about bullying , Executive

Educator, 20 22.HOOVER, J. H. and JUUL, K. (1993). `Bullying in Europe and the United States , Journal of Emotional

and Behavioral Problems, 2, 25 29.HOOVER, J. H., OLIVER, R. and HAZLER, R. J. (1992). `Bullying: perceptions of adolescent

victims in the Midwestern USA, School Psychology International, 13, 5 16.HOOVER, J. H., OLIVER, R. L. and THOMSON, K. A. (1993). `Perceived victimization by school

bullies: new research and future direction , Journal of Humanistic Education and Development, 32,76 84.

HORNE, A. M. and SOCHERMAN, R. (1996). P`ro le of a bully: Who would do such a thing,Educational Horizons, 74, 77 83.

JOHNSTON, L. D., OMALLEY, P. M. and BACHMAN, J. G. (1993). Monitoring the future study forGoal 6 of the National Education Goals: A special report for the National Education Goals Panel. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.

KAUKIAINEN, A., BJORKQVIST, K., LAGERSPETZ, K. M. J., OSTERMAN, K.,SALMIVALLI, C., FORSBLOM, S. and AHLBOM, A. (1999). `The relationships between socialintelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression , Aggressive Behavior, 25, 81 9.

KELLAM, S. G., REBOK, G. W., IALONGO, N. and MAYER, L. S. (1994). `The course andmalleability of aggressive behavior from early rst grade into middle school: Results of a develop-mental epidemiologically-based preventive trial, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and AlliedDisciplines, 35, 259 81.

KELTIKANGAS-JARVINEN, L. and PAKASIAHTI, L. (1999). `Development of social problemsolving strategies and changes in aggressive behavior: A 7-year follow-up from childhood to lateadolescence , Aggressive Behavior, 25, 269 79.

KIANG, P. N. and KAPLAN, J. (1994). `Where do we stand? Views of racial con ict by VietnameseAmerican high school students in a black-and-white context, Urban Review, 26, 95 119.

KOCHENDERFER, B. and LADD, G. (1996). `Peer victimization: Cause or consequence of schoolmaladjustment? , Child Development, 67, 1293 1305.

KOCHENDERFER, B. and LADD, G. (1997). `Victimised children s responses to peers aggression:Behaviours associated with reduced versus continued victimisation, Development and Psychopathology,9, 59 73.


KUM-WALKS, D. A. (1996). `Responses to school violence by schools and students (Doctoraldissertation, Claremont Graduate University, 1996), Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 4303A.

LAGERSPETZ, K. M. J. and BJORKVIST, K. (1994). I`ndirect aggression in boys and girls . In: Huesmann, L. R. (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives. New York: Plenum, pp. 131 50.

LAMPERT, J. B. (1997). `Voices and visions: adolescent girls experiences as bullies, targets, andbystanders (Doctoral dissertation, Northern Illinois University, 1997), Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 58, 2986A.

LANE, D. A. (1989). `Bullying in school, School Psychology International, 10, 211 15.LOCHMAN, J. E. (1992). `Cognitive-behavioral intervention with aggressive boys: three-year follow-

up and prevention effects, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 426 32.LORBER, R., FELTON, D. K. and REID, J. B. (1984). À social learning approach to the reduction

of coercive process in child abuse families: A molecular analysis, Advances in Behavior Research andTherapy, 6, 29 45.

MACCOBY, E. E. (1986). Sòcial groupings in childhood: Their relationship to prosocial and antisocialbehavior in boys and girls . In: OLWEUS, D. BLOCK, J. and RADKE-YARROW, M. (Eds)Development of antisocial and prosocial behavior: Research, theories, and issues. Orlando, FL: Academic, pp. 263 84.

MAHADY-WILTON, M. M. (1997). Èmotional regulation and display in classroom victims andbullies: Characteristics expressions of affect, coping styles and relevant contextual factors .Unpublished masters thesis, Queens University, Kingston, Canada.

MATSON, J. L. (1989). Social learning approaches to the treatment of emotional problems. Toronto: LexingtonBooks.

MCCARTHY, T. G. (1997). `Bullies and their victims: The killing ground (Doctoral dissertation,University of St. Thomas, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3470A.

MOONEY, S. and SMITH, P. K. (1995). `Bullying and child who stammers, British Journal of SpecialEducation, 22, 24 7.

MURAKAMI, Y. (1995). `Bullies in the classroom, Japan Quarterly, 32, 407 9.NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL (1993). The National Education Goals report: Volume one.

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Of ce.NAYLOR, P. and COWIE, H. (1999). `The effectiveness of peer support systems in challenging

school bullying: The perspectives and experiences of teachers and pupils , Journal of Adolescence, 22,1 13.

NEESE, L. A. (1989). `Psychological maltreatment in schools: emerging issues for counselors ,Elementary School Guidance & Counseling, 23, 194 200.

OCONNELL, P., PEPLER, D. and CRAIG, W. (1999). `Peer involvement in bullying: Insights andchallenges for intervention, Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437 52.

OLIVER, R. L., OAKS, I. N. and HOOVER, J. H. (1994). `Family issues and interventions in bullyand victim relationships , School Counselor, 41, 199 202.

OLIVER, R. L., YOUNG, T. A. and LASALLE, S. M. (1994). Eàrly lessons in bullying andvictimization: The help and hindrance of childrens literature , School Counselor, 42, 137 46.

OLWEUS, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.OLWEUS, D. (1984). Àggressors and their victims: bullying at school. In: FRUDE, N. and GAULT,

H. (Eds) Disruptive behavior disorders in schools. New York: Wiley, pp. 57 76.OLWEUS, D. (1991a). `Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a

school based intervention program. In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The developmentand treatment of childhood aggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 411 48.

OLWEUS, D. (1991b). `Victimization among school children . In: BAENNINGER, R. (Ed.) Targetsof violence and aggression. Holland: Elsevier Science, pp. 45 102.

OLWEUS, D. (1993a). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford: Blackwell.


OLWEUS, D. (1993b). `Victimization by peers: Antecedents and long-term outcomes. In: RUBIN, K. H. and ASENDROF, J. B. (Eds) Social withdrawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood. London:Erlbaum, pp. 315 41.

OLWEUS, D. (1994). `Bullying at school: Long-term outcomes for the victims and an effective school-based intervention program. In: HUESMANN, L. R. (Ed.) Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives.New York: Wiley, pp. 97 130.

OSTERMAN, K., BJORKQVIST, K., LAGERSPETZ, K., LANDAU, S., FRACZEK, A. andPASTORELLI, C. (1997). `Sex differences in styles of con ict resolution: A development and crosscultural study with data from Finland, Israel, Italy and Poland . In: FRY, D. and BJORKQVIST, K.(Eds) Cultural variation in con ict resolution. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

PAUKEN, P. D. (1997). `Knowledge and practice of Ohios school administrators regarding student-on-student violence and associated legal liability (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University,1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 3792A.

PERRY, D. G., KUSEL, S. J. and PERRY, L. C. (1988). `Victims of peer aggression , DevelopmentalPsychology, 24, 807 14.

POGREBIN, C. L. (1980). Growing up free: Raising your child in the 80s. New York: Bantam Books.PULKKINEN, L. and PITKANEN, T. (1993). `Continuities in aggressive behavior from childhood to

adulthood, Aggressive Behavior, 19, 249 63. RANDALL, P. (1997). Adult bullying: Perpetrators and victims. London: Routledge.REMBOLDT, C. (1994a). Solving violence problems in your school: Why a systematic approach is necessary.

Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute.REMBOLDT, C. (1994b). Violence in schools: The enabling factor. Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute.RIGBY, K. (1995). `The motivation of Australian adolescent schoolchildren to engage in group

discussions about bullying , Journal of Social Psychology, 135, 773 4.RIGBY, K. (1997). Àttitudes and beliefs about bullying among Australian school children, Irish Journal

of Psychology, 18, 202 20. RIGBY, K. and SLEE, P. T. (1991). `Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior

and attitudes toward victims, Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615 27.ROBERTS, W. B., Jr. and COURSOL, D. H. (1996). S`trategies for intervention with childhood

and adolescent victims of bullying, teasing, and intimidation in school settings, Elementary SchoolGuidance and Counseling, 30, 204 12.

ROLAND, E. (1989). `Bullying: the Scandinavian research tradition. In: TATTUM, D. P. and LANE,D. A. (Eds) Bullying in schools. Stoke-on-Trent, UK: Trentham, pp. 21 32.

SALMIVALLI, C. (1999). `Particiapnt role approach to school bullying: implications for intervention,Journal of Adolescence, 22, 453 9.

SALMIVALLI, C., KAUKIAINEN, A. and LAGERSPETZ, K. (1998). Àggression in the socialrelations of school-aged girls and boys . In: SLEE, P. and RIGBY, K. (Eds) Childrens peer relations.London: Routledge, pp. 60 75.

SALMIVALLI, C., LAGERSPETZ, K., BJORKQVIST, K., OSTERMAN, K. and KAUKIANEN,A. (1996). `Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within thegroup, Aggressive Behavior, 22, 1 15.

SCHWARTZ, D., DODGE, K., PETTIT, G. S. and BATES, J. E. (1997). `The early socialization ofaggressive victims of bullying, Child Development, 68, 665 75.

SERBIN, L. A., MOSKOWITZ, D. S., SCHWARTZMAN, A. E. and LEDINGHAM, J. E. (1991).Àggressive, withdrawn, and aggressive/withdrawn children in adolescence: Into the nextgeneration . In: PEPLER, D. J. and RUBIN, K. H. (Eds) The development and treatment of childhoodaggression. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 55 78.

SHARP, S. and SMITH, P. K. (1991). `Bullying in UK Schools: the DES Shef eld bullying project ,Early Child Development and Care, 77, 47 55.

SIANN, G., CALLAGHAN, M., LOCKHART, R. and RAWSON, L. (1993). `Bullying: teachersviews and school effects , Educational Studies, 19, 307 21.


SLEE, P. T. (1994). `Situational and interpersonal correlates of anxiety associated with peervictimization , Child Psychology and Human Development, 25, 97 107.

SLEE, P. T. and RIGBY, K. (1994). `Peer victimization at school, Australian Journal of Early Childhood,19, 3 10.

SMITH, P. K. (1991). `The silent nightmare: Bullying and victimisation in school peer groups,Psychologist, 48, 243 -8.

SMITH, P. K. and SHARP, S. (Eds) (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge.SOBSEY, D. (1994). Violence and abuse in the lives of people with disabilities: The end of silent acceptance?

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.SUTTON, J., SMITH, P. K. and SWETTENHAM, J. (1999). `Bullying and theory of mind : A

critique of the sòcial skills de cit view of anti-social behavior, Social Development, 8, 117 27. SUTTON, J., SMITH, P. K. and SWETTENHAM, J. (1999). Sòcial cognition and bullying: Social

inadeqacy or skilled manipulation? , British Journal of Developmental Psyhology, 17, 435 50. TROCHIM, W. M. K. (1989). Àn introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation ,

Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1 16.TROCHIM, W. M. K., COOK, J. A. and SETZE, R. J. (1994). Ùsing concept mapping to develop

a conceptual framework of staffs views of a supported employment program for individuals withsevere mental illness , Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 766 75.

TROY, M. and SROUFE, L. A. (1987). `Victimization among preschoolers: Role of attachmentrelationship history, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 26, 166 72.

WHITNEY, I. and SMITH, P. K. (1993). À survey of the nature and extent of bullying injunior/middle and secondary schools, Educational Research, 35, 3 25.

WHITNEY, I., NABUZOKA, D. and SMITH, P. K. (1992). `Bullying in schools: Mainstream andspecial needs, Support for Learning, 7, 3 7.

WILLMS, J. D. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington, DC: Falmer.WINTERS, D. L. (1997). `Levels of violence in Pennsylvania public schools and efforts to control and

prevent violence (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International,58, 2020A.

CORRESPONDENCE

Dr. Xin Ma, 6 102 Education North, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G5 CanadaTel: (780) 492-2621. Fax: (780) 492-4345. E-mail: [email protected]


1. bullying in school. nature, effects and remedies

Documents