a conceptual definition of school-based bullying

Defining BullyingA conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian

research and academic community

A What Works for Kids Evidence Review

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | i

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research

and academic community

S.A. Hemphill, J.A. Heerde and R. Gomo

Prepared by the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth for the Australian Government Department of Education. The views expressed in this publication do not

necessarily represent the views of the Australian Government or the Department of

Education.

© 2014 Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Limited

All intellectual property rights, including copyright, comprised in this material are the property of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Ltd, a company

limited by guarantee with its registered office at 9 Torrens Street, Braddon in the

Australian Capital Territory (‘ARACY’). ARACY reserves all its rights as the owner of the said intellectual property. You are only permitted to possess and use this material subject

to a licence granted by ARACY. The licence is granted upon the terms and conditions which are contained on page 36 of this document. By accepting delivery of this material,

you agree to be legally bound by those terms and conditions.

If you do not agree to all the terms and conditions on page 36, then you are not

permitted to possess and use this material and must immediately return to ARACY or destroy all copies of it.

Suggested citation

Hemphill, S.A., Heerde, J.A. & Gomo, R. (2014). A conceptual definition of school-based bullying for the Australian research and academic community. Canberra: Australian

Research Alliance for Children and Youth.

Contact us

If you have any queries about this report, please contact ARACY:

Mail: PO Box 5070, Braddon, ACT 2612 Email: [email protected] Website:

aracy.org.au Phone: +61 2 6248 2400

@ARACYAustralia

ABN 68 100 902 921

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | ii

Acknowledgements

The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth would like to

acknowledge the contributions of the following people for providing valuable

advice and input into the completion of this report:

Amy Barnes, Researcher, Telethon Kids Institute

Professor Marilyn Campbell, Queensland University of Technology

Donna Cross, Professor, Telethon Kids Institute, The University of

Western Australia

Professor Kenneth Rigby, University of South Australia

Dr Grace Skrzypiec, Flinders University

Professor Phillip Slee, Flinders University

Dr Barbara Spears, University of South Australia

Regina Walsh, Queensland Department of Education, Training and

Employment

A Conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | iii

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................... 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Review conclusions ............................................................................................................. 2

Paper structure ................................................................................................................... 3

Section 1: Concepts and challenges in defining bullying .............. 5

1.1. Overview of the history of bullying definitions ...................................................... 5

1.2. Key concepts in contemporary definitions of bullying ........................................... 7

1.3. Traditional bullying versus cyberbullying ............................................................... 9

1.4. Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying ......................................... 10

1.5. Challenges in defining bullying ............................................................................. 11

Intentionality ................................................................................................................. 12

Bullying as behaviour versus interpersonal relationship .............................................. 12

Repeated behaviours .................................................................................................... 13

Power imbalance .......................................................................................................... 13

School-based ................................................................................................................. 13

Children’s age and capacity .......................................................................................... 13

1.6. Challenges in measuring bullying ......................................................................... 14

Section 2: Proposed definition .................................................... 15

Section 3: Proposed next steps ................................................... 16

Stage 1: Operationalise the definition .............................................................................. 16

Stage 2: Promote the acceptance and use of the definition ............................................ 17

References ................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Variation in prevalence rates of bullying according to

definition ...................................................................................... 27

Copyright notice and disclaimer .................................................. 36

A conceptual definition of school-based bullying Page | 1

Executive Summary

Introduction

This paper was commissioned by the Australian Research Alliance for Children

and Youth (ARACY) on behalf of the Australian Government Department of

Education. It was prepared by researchers in the School of Psychology,

Australian Catholic University.

The paper presents a conceptual definition of school-based bullying, that is, a

statement of the meaning of bullying within school communities, for the

Australian research and academic community. The paper focuses on bullying

between students, where student relationships are formed through school. It

reviews:

Existing approaches to measuring school-based bullying in Australian

and international school communities1

The different types or forms of school-based bullying (for example,

verbal, physical and psychological / social)

The rationale for and conceptual challenges involved in developing a

consistent conceptual definition of school-based bullying.

The current review was undertaken in recognition of the importance of having

a shared conceptual definition of school-based bullying. Different

conceptualisations of bullying (especially around the kinds of behaviours,

intentions, contexts and power-relations involved) lead to inconsistent

approaches to how bullying is researched and measured. In particular, this

inconsistency has meant there is significant variation in bullying prevalence

estimates and, as a result, it is nearly impossible to determine whether

differences in prevalence estimates reflect genuine differences in bullying

behaviours and experiences or simply the different measures used.2 It is then

difficult to draw general conclusions about school-based bullying and to

compare findings across studies and across contexts and jurisdictions. This

1 Although workplace bullying may impact on a school’s climate (and therefore on

students), any bullying which falls within the ambit of employment law and / or workplace health and safety laws is outside the scope of this paper. While it is

recognised that school-based bullying can occur between students, students and teachers, parents and teachers, and parents and students, most research has focused

on student-to-student bullying. 2 See Appendix A for a table summarising the variation in prevalence rates based on the use of different definitions of school-based bullying.

Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Page | 2

has implications for the development of bullying policy and preventive

interventions.

The process for undertaking the current review included:

The completion of two draft reviews in consultation with ARACY

and the Department of Education.

A Roundtable to discuss the second draft which included

recognised Australian bullying researchers and experts in the field,

the Department of Education, and ARACY.

Based on the feedback from the Roundtable, the completion of a

third draft that was reviewed by four peer reviewers.

The completion of the final version of the review based on the

feedback of the reviewers, ARACY, and the Department of

Education.

Review conclusions

The review concludes there is consensus around three aspects of the

contemporary definition of bullying. These are: intentional or deliberate acts;

repeated over time; and involving a power imbalance. However, while most

bullying researchers would identify these three concepts as the core features

of bullying, the specific meanings or parameters of these concepts have not

been consistently defined and the measures most often used in studies of

bullying have not consistently captured these central features, making it

difficult to compare studies or accurately interpret the findings. The review

unpacks these concepts further and highlights the variations in interpretations

and related challenges to consistent measurement.

Over and above these issues, the study highlights the need for the definition

to accurately reflect what many stakeholders would agree bullying is, as a

cultural phenomenon, not just the description and categorisation of a set of

behaviours. The definition therefore includes a general statement of what

bullying is at a high level as well as including the detail of the various

components or behaviours.


The proposed definition centres on the three aspects of the contemporary

definition but goes further to seek to address the issues raised by better

defining the nuances of each of these aspects and recommending a way

through the potential variations in interpretations:

An important outcome of this review has been the recognition of the

importance of operationalising a technical definition through a formative

process in order to fully address the measurement issues highlighted in the

review – while researchers may agree in theory on a high level conceptual

definition, this quickly unravels in practice when it is operationalised in

different ways. While this proposed definition provides a clearer way forward,

the operationalising of the definition, including the development of agreed

measures and indicators, is what is required to support a better system of

data collection and consistent prevalence statistics. Hence, this conceptual

definition is the first step, that is, it is a ‘draft’ and a ‘work in progress’ to be

revisited once further formative work has been undertaken.

Paper structure

Section 1 of the review provides a succinct description of the history of

conceptualisations of bullying in the research literature, with a focus on

existing definitions of school-based bullying used in Australian and

international research and challenges in conceptualising and defining bullying.

A brief summary of the prevalence of different forms of school-based bullying

is provided in Appendix A to demonstrate how prevalence rates are influenced

greatly by how bullying is defined (and then operationalised).

Proposed definition: school-based bullying

School-based bullying is a systematic abuse of power in a relationship

formed at school characterised by:

1. aggressive acts directed (by one or more individuals) toward

victims that a reasonable person would avoid;

2. acts which usually occur repeatedly over a period of time; and

3. acts in which there is an actual or perceived power

imbalance between perpetrators and victims, with victims often

being unable to defend themselves effectively from perpetrators.


Section 2 proposes a conceptual definition for the Australian academic /

research context that encapsulates the various forms of school-based bullying

occurring in school communities. The conceptual definition described in this

review is the starting point in a broader process (see Section 3) that will

include the development of an operational definition of the conceptual

definition that includes consistent indicators and measures of school-based

bullying.

Section 3 describes the next steps in trialling the conceptual definition and

also operationalising this definition of school-based bullying for use by

researchers and academics.


Section 1: Concepts and challenges in defining

bullying

Presenting definitive prevalence estimates for the different forms of school-

based bullying is challenging as a result of variation in conceptual definitions

of bullying used across existing studies, and disparity in the way bullying has

been operationalised for measurement (Appendix A demonstrates this

variation across a range of studies). The purpose of this review is to develop a

shared conceptual definition of school-based bullying for academics and

researchers. This will then inform the development of a shared approach to

operationalising the conceptual definition of bullying, with the aim of adopting

a consistent approach to measuring bullying and thus enabling an accurate

picture of bullying prevalence and a better understanding of the variation in

bullying prevalence estimates. This section of the review provides a succinct

review of conceptual definitions of school-based bullying, followed by existing

conceptual definitions of school-based bullying from the Australian and

international context, and a description of the benefits and limitations of the

existing definitions.

1.1. Overview of the history of bullying definitions

Over time, there have been significant changes to the way bullying has been

conceptualised, and the types of behaviours that have been included in

bullying definitions. Table 1 provides a summary of the major developments in

the history of conceptualising bullying. In a literature review examining the

evolution of conceptual definitions of school bullying in the international

context, Koo (2007) noted that the first major academic publication

addressing bullying among young people was written by Burk (1897), after

which there was a lengthy gap in research reports on bullying.

Published research conducted in Scandinavia appeared in the 1970s, through

the work of Pikas (1975) and Olweus (1978), and reignited academic

discussion on school-based bullying, with a focus on student-to-student

bullying. Early research conducted in the Scandinavian context used mobbing

(that is, multiple individuals bullying another individual) to describe patterns

of bullying; however, this form of behaviour represents a subset of broader

behaviours that comprise bullying. During the 1970s, bullying was theorised

and conceptualised as being part of a child’s misbehaviour.


Research conducted from the 1980s to the present has seen the meaning of

bullying expanded to include direct verbal taunting and social exclusion. For

example, Björkqvist, Lagerspetz and Kaukiainen (1982) included indirect

forms of bullying, such as spreading rumours, in their definition. Later,

Olweus (1999) defined bullying including gestures and facial expression as

indirect bullying. The emergence of the internet and use of technology-based

social media has provided a new medium through which bullying can occur;

this has been termed cyber-bullying.

The continued debate over the core or essential features of bullying, including

whether cyberbullying should be considered a form of bullying or a separate

phenomenon, underscores the need for a shared, consensus-based definition.

Table 1: Developments in the conceptualisation of school-based bullying

Year Researcher Development/definition

1897 Burk First major academic publication on bullying amongst young people.

1975 Pikas Mobbing, as distinct from bullying, is a negative activity, employed by

two or more people, against one person or a well-defined group. The

perpetrators must interact with one another (they reinforce each

other), and there must be no negative intentions other than the

persecution of the victim. In other words, “mobbing tends to be a goal

in itself”.

1978 Olweus “Bullying . . . has a broader meaning compared to mobbing, and it is

different from mobbing, especially in the number of assaulters.

Mobbing happens to someone who is somewhat different from the

major group and it could be considered as part of human nature in

rejecting someone different from the majority. Although for victims of

bullying, external characteristics could be a part of the reasons for

being bullied, there could be many other reasons as well (e.g.

personality)” (cited in Koo, 2007, p. 109).

1993 Olweus

“A person is being bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly over

time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students”

(p.9).

1993 Farrington

“Bullying is repeated oppression of a less powerful person, physical or

psychological, by a more powerful person” (p.381).

1994 Smith & Sharp Bullying is “the systematic abuse of power.”


2006 Pepler, Craig,

Connolly, Yuile,

McMaster, &

Jiang

Bullying is a relationship problem “because it is a form of aggression

that unfolds in the context of a relationship in which one child asserts

interpersonal power through aggression” (p. 376).

2012 Langos “Cyberbullying involves the use of ICTs (information and

communication technologies) to carry out a series of acts as in the case

of direct cyberbullying, or an act as in the case of indirect

cyberbullying, intended to harm another (the victim) who cannot easily

defend him or herself” (p. 288).

2013 Rigby Bullying is “a desire to hurt + hurtful action + a power imbalance +

(typically) repetition + an unjust use of power + evident enjoyment by

the aggressor and a sense of being oppressed on the part of the

victim.”

1.2. Key concepts in contemporary definitions of bullying

Contemporary definitions of bullying have incorporated (with different levels

of consistency) a number of key concepts. Bullying is generally considered to

be a subset of aggressive behaviour (Koo, 2007; Spears, 2005), with the

latter defined as behaviour that intends to cause harm or injury to another

(Baron, 1977) and usually results in personal injury or destruction of property

(Bandura, 1973). School-based bullying is generally characterised as including

three main features:

i) aggressive or negative intentional or deliberate acts directed (by

one or more individuals) toward victims, in order to cause physical,

verbal, psychological, or social harm or hurt;

ii) acts which occur repeatedly over a period of time; and

iii) acts where there is a power imbalance between perpetrators and

victims, with victims often being unable to easily defend

themselves from perpetrators (Olweus,1993). This power

imbalance may be physical (for example, the perpetrator is

stronger than the victim) or sociological (for example, the victim

belongs to an ethnic minority group).

These three features of bullying are included in definitions from Australia’s

National Centre Against Bullying (2013), the United States Centers for Disease


Control and Prevention (2012), and within the academic / research setting

both in Australia and internationally (for example, Due et al., 2005;

Farrington, Baldry, Kyvsgaard, and Ttofi, 2010; Hemphill, Tollit, and Kotevski,

2012). Definitions of bullying need to take into account how to separate

bullying from other similar behaviours. The three core features ensure this.

Without reference to a power imbalance and repetitiveness, the behaviour

described is simply aggression or violence. These behaviours can be

considered ‘school-based bullying’ when they involve relationships that are

formed through schools.

Within these three features of bullying, research has also established that

bullying may be overt (that is, behaviour visible to others such as physically

or verbally attacking another person) or covert (that is, behaviour that is not

visible to others such as spreading rumours or deliberately excluding another

individual from a social exchange) (Crick and Bigbee, 1998). In the Australian

Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS), covert bullying was defined as:

“any form of aggressive behaviour that is repeated, intended to

cause harm and characterised by an imbalance of power, and is

‘hidden’, out of sight of, or unacknowledged by, adults. Covert

bullying includes behaviours linked to social aggression, relational

aggression and indirect aggression, including bullying by means of

technology where the bullying behaviour is either unwitnessed, or

not addressed, by an adult” (Cross et al., 2009, p. 22).

A more detailed description of the differences between covert bullying, social

aggression, relational aggression, and indirect aggression is beyond the scope

of this review; for further information, refer to Cross et al (2009) Chapter 2.

Within the broad domains of overt and covert bullying, the following types of

bullying have been recognised (Due et al., 2005; Farrington and Ttofi, 2010;

National Centre Against Bullying, 2013):

Physical bullying including hitting, kicking, tripping, pinching, and

pushing or damaging the property of another person.

Verbal bullying including name-calling, insulting, teasing,

intimidating, making homophobic or racist remarks, or verbally

abusing another person.

Psychological or social bullying, designed to harm another persons’

social reputation and / or cause this person humiliation, including

lying and spreading rumours, hurtfully mimicking behaviour,


playing nasty jokes designed to cause embarrassment and

humiliation, damaging someone's social reputation or social

acceptance, encouraging others to socially exclude another person,

mobbing, and making negative facial or physical gestures,

menacing or contemptuous looks, towards another person.

1.3. Traditional bullying versus cyberbullying

The use of the technology as a medium through which bullying can occur has

resulted in a re-examination of existing definitions of school-based bullying.

Cyber-bullying has been described as bullying carried out using technology

(David-Ferdon and Hertz, 2009; Hemphill, Tollit, and Kotevski, 2012),

including behaviours such as harassing another person via a mobile phone or

internet-based social networking site, setting up a defamatory personal

website or deliberately excluding someone from interacting within social

networking spaces. In Langos’ (2012) definition (see Table 1), direct cyber-

bullying refers to repeated, unwanted communications with the victim,

whereas indirect cyber-bullying applies in situations where the perpetrator

places material on a public forum that is not sent directly to the victim.

Given technological advancements, and the removal of ‘face-to-face’ elements

traditionally associated with bullying, the emergence of cyber-bullying raises

potential conceptual and practical questions about application of the

traditionally used bullying criteria to cyber-bullying. More specifically,

questions have been raised about the repetitiveness of behaviours over time,

as well as how the intentionality of behaviour and power differentials are

determined. For example, one overt act of cyber-bullying (for example,

insulting another person through a social networking site) may have

detrimental consequences for the victim without the behaviour necessarily

being repeated at another point in time. Further, although the person

perpetrating an act of cyber-bullying may engage in this behaviour only once,

if the material is repetitively circulated more widely by other persons,

potentially resulting in a greater level of harm, questions are raised as to

whether these acts meet the traditional bullying criteria of repetition.

The nature of bullying acts perpetrated using technology and in cyberspace

may also challenge evaluations of behaviour against the traditional bullying

criteria of intent and power imbalance – particularly in terms of how intent

and power imbalance are understood and measured. However, in a study


across six European countries (Italy, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Estonia and

France), the authors concluded that intentionality (intention to harm another

person) and imbalance of power, which “occurs when someone who is more

powerful in some way targets a person with less power causing a feeling of

powerlessness for the victim and also makes it difficult to defend oneself” (p.

10), were essential features of the definition of cyber-bullying (Menesini et al.

2012).

Menesini et al. (2012) proposed that there were two additional criteria that

may be relevant to cyber-bullying: anonymity (the victim may not know who

the perpetrator is) and ‘public versus private’ (the impact of cyber-bullying

may be greater when it occurs in public over the internet rather than as a

private exchange using electronic communication between perpetrator and

victim) (Nocentini et al., 2010; Slonje and Smith, 2008). Menesini et al.

(2012) found that adolescents defined cyber-bullying according to three main

criteria: an imbalance of power (focused on the consequences for the victim

and that the victim did not know how to defend him / herself), intentionality,

and anonymity. In the case of anonymity, if the imbalance of power is not

present, the act was more likely to be considered cyber-bullying if it was

intentional and the perpetrator was not anonymous. The public versus private

dimension was not identified in the Menesini et al. (2012) study as key criteria

for cyber-bullying.

Cyber-bullying also raises challenges for the conceptualisation of ‘school-

based’ bullying, given it can occur primarily or exclusively outside of school

grounds and school hours. However, as is not uncommon for the effects of

cyber-bullying to impact on the school environment most schools now

generally consider this form of bullying as one they do need to understand

and take steps to prevent and it is appropriate to include it in a conceptual

definition of bullying.

1.4. Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying

Australian policy definitions of school-based bullying have been informed by

research conducted to date. The Safe and Supportive School Communities

(SSSC) is a working group funded by the Standing Council for School

Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC) and includes nominated

representatives from all Australian jurisdictions, as well as representatives

from the Catholic and independent school sectors.


The SSSC researched and agreed on a definition of bullying that was included

in the revised National Safe Schools Framework, endorsed by all Education

Ministers in 2010. The National Safe Schools Framework (MCEECDYA, 2011)

defines bullying as:

Repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological behaviour that is

harmful and involves the misuse of power by an individual or

group towards one or more persons. Cyber-bullying refers to

bullying through information and communication technologies.

Conflict or fights between equals and single incidents are not

defined as bullying.

Bullying of any form or for any reason can have long-term effects

on those involved including bystanders.

While these definitions are appropriate and useful for informing current and

future policy and practice, including mobilising government, schools, young

people and families in bullying prevention initiatives, they do not meet the

requirements of a research or technical definition. Researchers require a

definition that identifies the constructs that underpin the practice of bullying,

a definition that precisely identifies all of the important components of

bullying and is therefore able to be operationalised for consistent

measurement.

1.5. Challenges in defining bullying

Conceptual definitions of school-based bullying generally share key concepts,

including 1) intentional aggressive acts towards another person to cause

(psychological, social, or physical) harm, 2) repeated engagement in this

behaviour, and 3) a power imbalance between the perpetrator and the victim.

In general, most researchers refer to these characteristics when discussing

bullying.

However, while most bullying researchers would identify these three concepts

as the core features of bullying, the specific meanings or parameters of these

concepts have not been consistently defined and the measures most often

used in studies of bullying have not consistently captured these central

features. Roundtable members noted that bullying studies often conceptualise

and measure different components of bullying, or utilise different

interpretations of the key concepts, making it difficult to compare studies or

accurately interpret the findings.


Key conceptual issues discussed by the Roundtable are outlined below.

Intentionality

Although there is general consensus that intention to cause harm is central to

bullying, this concept is not as straightforward as it might seem. Harm may be

intended but not experienced, or not explicitly intended (in the instance of

exclusionary behaviours, for example) but nonetheless experienced. If

intentional aggressive acts are not experienced as distressing, is the

behaviour still considered bullying? Intent can be difficult to objectively

identify, let alone measure, and may be conceptually inadequate if it does not

take into account the expectation that individuals anticipate the potential

harm that may be caused by particular behaviours. Similarly, if intention to

harm is denied by an alleged perpetrator, is there any objective standard for

determining which behaviours clearly violate community norms and

expectations?

Roundtable members suggested that the concept of the ‘reasonable person’

may be appropriate to encapsulate ‘intent to harm’ in a more tangible way. A

reasonable person can be defined as “a hypothetical person in society who

exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct,” and it is a concept

that forms a comparative standard of acceptable behaviour in a legal context

(Lehman and Phelps, 2005). Langos (2012) has described how the concept of

the reasonable person applies to intent to harm in the context of bullying “An

intention to harm is established where a reasonable person, adopting the

position of the victim and having regard to all the circumstances, would

regard the behaviours as acts intended to harm to the victim” (p.288).

Bullying as behaviour versus interpersonal relationship

Roundtable discussion highlighted a critical aspect of the conceptual definition

is the need for an agreed statement or higher-level (simple) construct to

describe what bullying is. One such position stemming from the application of

bullying definitions on the ground is that bullying is a ‘type of relationship /

social dynamic / interactional pattern’ rather than ‘a behaviour’ (such as an

act of aggression). Further, it was argued, as bullying is a culturally-derived

concept (rather than ‘a thing’), the definition needs to be developed by a

cultural consensus-building process rather than being arrived at by discerning

an essential aspect (or ‘essence’) of a physical thing.

As part of exploring the relationship and experience aspects of bullying the

discussion also raised the issue of whether the definition focused on what the

bully does (that is, the behaviours or acts) or what the victim experiences.


This issue overlaps with those raised with regard to the determination of

intentionality of acts (see above).

Repeated behaviours

Repetition is another generally agreed characteristic of bullying that may be

more complex than it first appears, particularly in the context of cyber-

bullying.

A definition of bullying ought to recognise that bullying may only require one

action to have a profound impact on the victim. Additionally, in the context of

cyber-bullying, the repetition criteria could be met by the spread of a single

original post to multiple recipients through the internet. That is, an act – or

the consequences of an act – are repeated or sustained over time (for

example, an embarrassing picture is posted online and continues to distress

the target if it cannot be removed).

Power imbalance

Power imbalances can also be difficult to determine objectively and require a

relatively nuanced (and often contextually specific) understanding of power

relations. For instance, the power imbalance may be actual (older and

younger students) or perceived (relating to social status or online anonymity).

Power imbalance may be reflected in a range of characteristics such as

physical (for example, the perpetrator is stronger than the victim), sociological

(for example, the victim belongs to an ethnic minority group), anonymity or

skill differentials (for example, the victim is not as skilled at using technology).

Another important concept here is that bullying is an abuse of this power

imbalance that, because of the repetition of bullying acts, can be considered a

systematic abuse. This systematic abuse of power is also what makes it

difficult for victims to defend themselves.

School-based

The meaning of ‘school-based’ bullying has also been a source of confusion,

with some researchers and practitioners taking this to mean only bullying

which takes place within school grounds and hours, and others interpreting it

as relating to relationships formed through school and impacting social and

emotional wellbeing within school.

Children’s age and capacity

Another challenge in current conceptualisations of bullying is how to take into

account age differences in what is considered to be appropriate behaviour.


For example, at what age do children have the cognitive capacity to

intentionally harm another and / or from what age does the ‘reasonable

person’ standard apply?

This is an important issue that requires further consideration when

operationalising the definition and may involve further expert consultation and

/ or qualitative research with young people.

1.6. Challenges in measuring bullying

In addition to posing challenges to conceptual clarity, these issues raise

significant issues for the consistency of measurement. For example:

How do researchers ensure the wording of questions reflects a

deliberate or intentional act?

How do researchers capture the notion of power imbalance in their

surveys?

How is the ‘cut-off’ point for bullying specified? An act repeated one or

more times can have a different meaning to an act repeated two or

more times.

Do survey questions ask about bullying that happened at school or in

school, or about bullying that happened between people from school?

In addition, published studies have shown that prevalence estimates vary

depending on whether respondents are provided with lists of behaviours that

constitute bullying or given a description of bullying before completing the

survey (Crothers and Levinson, 2011).

It is this variation in how bullying is measured that makes the variability in

prevalence estimates and research findings about school-based bullying

difficult to interpret, and makes it challenging to identify and understand true

difference in prevalence (see Appendix A).


Section 2: Proposed definition

The conceptual definition of bullying needs to ensure the majority (if not all)

likely bullying scenarios within school environments are captured. The

proposed conceptual definition of bullying has been selected to be consistent

with that currently used in both the Australian and international research and

academic community, and to provide additional clarity around the conceptual

challenges identified in the previous section.

This definition provides specificity and enables consistency around a number

of conceptual issues:

It establishes bullying as a systematic abuse of power,

It clarifies that school-based bullying applies to relationships formed at

school,

It establishes the perspective of the ‘reasonable person’ as the

mechanism for determining intentionality,

It retains the criteria of repetition but with flexibility that allows for

different patterns of bullying identified as part of cyber-bullying, and

It notes the importance of actual and perceived power imbalances.

Proposed definition: school-based bullying

School-based bullying is a systematic abuse of power in a relationship

formed at school characterised by:

1. aggressive acts directed (by one or more individuals) toward

victims that a reasonable person would avoid;

2. acts which usually occur repeatedly over a period of time; and

3. acts in which there is an actual or perceived power

imbalance between perpetrators and victims, with victims often

being unable to defend themselves effectively from perpetrators


Section 3: Proposed next steps

The brief of this review was to generate a conceptual definition of school-

based bullying. This is an important first step towards more consistent

measurement of school-based bullying, as it sets the foundation for the

development of common indicators and measures of bullying, which can then

be incorporated consistently into all bullying prevalence studies. As noted by

Roundtable participants, it is a normal part of the research process for

conceptual ideas to be trialled and modified through an iterative process.

A short statement of the bullying concept (‘Bullying is a systematic abuse of

power in a relationship formed at school’) has been included in the proposed

definition, however, it will be necessary to explore this further as it will have

implications for how bullying is measured, how clearly the concept is

articulated and understood in practice, and ultimately how accurately the

measured concepts reflect the phenomenon. In operationalising the definition,

research and consultation will aim to test, validate or challenge the conceptual

definition and its adequacy and usefulness when applied in practice. The

formative process can be designed to include a cultural consensus-building

process as well as the technical aspects of defining and measuring

behaviours. Useful questions to explore in the formative testing and feedback

stage may therefore include:

1. What kind of phenomenon is ‘bullying’? Is the concept able to be

described in a short statement by a range of stakeholders?

2. Is the more detailed definition accurate?

3. Is the more detailed definition comprehensive?

4. Is the more detailed definition adequate to distinguish bullying from

other behaviours or incidents?

The following outlines agreed next steps for operationalising this definition of

school-based bullying.

Stage 1: Operationalise the definition

Several sub-steps will be required to operationalise this definition:

i) Undertake review work and a roundtable discussion to scope available

indicators, measures and instruments, in order to establish a


consistent process that enables the proposed conceptual definition to

be effectively operationalised.

ii) On the basis of the review, recommend a draft operationalisation of

the conceptual definition and in particular describe the measures and

indicators that could be used to operationalise the conceptual

definition of school-based bullying.

iii) The draft operationalisation of the conceptual definition can then be

trialled, tested, or formatively evaluated by seeking feedback from

academics using the draft definition in their research. The outcome of

this formative work would be a detailed definition that incorporates a

high-level concept ‘bullying is a...’ statement and the components of

the definition, as well as the constructs, indicators, and measures that

are best used to capture this.

iv) During the process of operationalising the conceptual definition, it will

also be important to obtain the perspectives and understandings of

young people and to ensure the development of ‘plain language’

definitions for young people and their families.

v) Consistent with research processes, after a trial period, revisit the

conceptual definition and if needed, propose a revised, detailed

conceptual definition and how this can be operationalised.

Stage 2: Promote the acceptance and use of the definition

To promote the acceptance and use of the conceptual definition and the

operationalisation of this definition developed from the formative process, the

following activities can be undertaken:

Publication of outcomes of this formative work in a peer-reviewed

journal article (so other researchers can cite the definition in their

work).

Presentations of the definition and research at conferences where

bullying researchers and academics are likely to present (to raise

awareness of the work and promote use of the definition and citation

of the peer-reviewed journal article).


Webinars organised by ARACY targeted at the research and academic

community and presented by the authors of the review to disseminate

the definitions and encourage their usage through citations in their

own research.

Placing a summary of the work on relevant websites such as the

ARACY website.

ARACY to collaborate with the National Centre Against Bullying (NCAB)

to promote the use of the definition among researchers within NCAB

and its networks and citation of the published paper to show support

of the definitions.

A conceptual Definition of School-Based Bullying Page | 19

References

Allen, K.P. (2010). Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices.

The Professional Educator, 34(1), 1-16.

Andrew, A.A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: A study

to investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68,

255-268.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, R.A. (1977). Human Aggression. New York: Plenum.

Beran, T., & Li, Q. (2007). The relationship between cyberbullying and school

bullying. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 1(2), 15-33.

Björkqvist, K., Ekman, K., & Lagerspetz, K. (1982). Bullies and victims: their

ego picture, ideal ego picture and normative ego picture. Scandinavian

Journal of Psychology, 23, 307–313.

Burk, F.L. (1897). Teasing and bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4, 336-371.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Understanding bullying

fact sheet. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingfactsheet2012-

a.pdf

Crick, N.R., & Bigbee, M.A. (1998). Relational and overt forms of peer

victimization: A multiinformant approach. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 337-347.

Crick, N.R., & Grotpeter, J.K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and

social‐psychological adjustment. Child development, 66(3), 710-722.

Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas,

L. (2009). Australian Covert Bullying Prevalence Study (ACBPS). Perth,

Australia: Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan

University.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingfactsheet2012-a.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullyingfactsheet2012-a.pdf


Crothers, L.M. & Levinson, E.D. (2011). Assessment of bullying: A review of

methods and instruments. Journal of Counselling & Development,

82(4), 496-503.

David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M.F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and

adolescents: An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent

Health, 41(6, Supp), S1-S5.

David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M.F. (2009). Electronic Media and Youth Violence:

A CDC Issue Brief for Researchers. Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention.

Delfabbro, P., Winefield, T., Trainor, S., Dollard, M., Anderson, S., Metzer, J.,

& Hammarstrom, A. (2006). Peer and teacher bullying / victimization

of South Australian secondary school students: Prevalence and

psychosocial profiles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1),

71-90.

Dixon, R. (2011). Rethinking school bullying: Towards an integrated model.

Cambridge University Press.

Dooley, J.J., Pyżalski, J., & Cross, D. (2009). Cyberbullying versus face-to-face

bullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 182-188.

Due, P., Holstein, B.E., Lynch, J., Diderichsen, F., Gabhain, S.N., Scheidt, P.,

& Currie, C. (2005). Bullying and symptoms among school-aged

children: international comparative cross sectional study in 28

countries. The European Journal of Public Health, 15(2), 128-132.

Duncan, D.J., & Riley, D. (2005). Staff bullying in Catholic schools. Australia

and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education 10(11), 47.

Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. In M. Tonry

(Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (pp. 381-458). Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Farrington, D., Baldry, A., Kyvsgaard, B., & Ttofi, M. (2010). School-Based

Programs to Reduce Bullying and Victimization (No. 6) (p. 147).

Campbell Systematic Reviews.


Farrington, D.P., & Ttofi, M.M. (2010). School-Based Programs to Reduce

Bullying and Victimization. Campbell Systematic Reviews: 6,

10.4073/csr.2009.6

Forero, R. McLellan, L., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (1999). Bullying behaviour

and psychosocial health among school students in New South Wales,

Australia: cross sectional survey. British Medical Journal, 319(7206),

344-348.

Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying

victims. Educational Review, 60(4), 391-404.

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 Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,

159, 1026-1031.

Griffin, R.S., & Gross, A.M. (2004). Childhood bullying: Current empirical

findings and future directions for research. Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 9(4), 379-400.

Hay, C., Meldrum, R. & Mann, K. (2010). Traditional bullying, cyber bullying,

and deviance: A general strain theory approach. Journal of

Contemporary Criminal Justice, 26(2), 130-147.

Hemphill, S.A., Kotevski, A., Tollit, M., Smith, R., Herrenkohl, T.I.,

Toumbourou, J.W., & Catalano, R.F. (2012). Longitudinal predictors of

cyber and traditional bullying perpetration in Australian secondary

school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 59-65.

Hemphill, S.A., Tollit, M. & Kotevski, A. (2012). Rates of bullying perpetration

and victimisation: A longitudinal study of Victorian secondary school

students. Pastoral Care in Education: An International Journal of

Personal, Social and Emotional Development, 30, 99-112. Special issue

on Violence, Aggression and Support.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: an exploratory analysis of

factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29(2),

129-156.


Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying

at school—an indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders.

Journal of Adolescence, 23(6), 661-674.

Katzer, C., Fetchenhauer, D., & Belschak, F. (2009). Cyberbullying: Who Are

the Victims? A Comparison of Victimization in Internet Chatrooms and

Victimization in School. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(1), 25-36.

Kauppi, T., & Porhola, M. (2012a). School teachers bullied by their students:

Teachers’ attributions and how they share their experiences. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 28(7), 1059-1068.

Kauppi, T., & Porhola, M. (2012b). Teachers bullied by students: Forms of

bullying and perpetrator characteristics. Violence and Victims, 27(3),

396-413.

Koo, H. (2007). A time line of the evolution of school bullying in differing

social contexts. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 107-116.

Langos, C. (2012). Cyberbullying: The challenge to define. Cyberpsychology,

Behaviour, and Social Networking, 15(6), 285-289.

Lehman, J., & Phelps, S. (2005). West’s Encyclopaedia of American Law in

The Free Dictionary: Legal Dictionary, Farlex. Accessed 22 November

2013.

Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B.E., Frisen, A., Berne, S., Ortega-Ruiz,

R., Calmaestra, J., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-Krumbholz, A. Luik, P.,

Naruskov, K., Blaya, C., Berthaud, J., & Smith, P.K. (2012).

Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six

European countries, 15(9), 455-463.

Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Palladino, B.E., Scheithauer, H., Schultze-

Krumbholz, A., Frisén, A., Berne, S., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ortega, R.,

Calmaestra, J., & Blaya, C.,(in press). Definitions of cyberbullying. In

P. Smith & G. Steffgen (Eds.), Cyberbullying through the new media:

Findings from an international network. Psychology Press.


Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth

Affairs. (2011). National Safe Schools Framework. Ministerial Council

for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs:

Carlton, Victoria. Retrieved from

http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_safe_sch

ools_framework.pdf

McEvoy, A. (2005). Teachers who bully students: Patterns and policy

implications. In Teachers who bully students. Presentation to the

Conference on Persistently Safe Schools–Philadelphia (September 11–

14. 2005).

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. JAMA, 285(16), 2094-

2100.

National Centre Against Bullying. (2013). http://www.ncab.org.au/

National Center for Educational Statistics: Institute of Education Sciences.

(2011). Student reports of bullying and cyber-bullying: Results from

the 2007 school crime supplement to the National Crime Victimization

Survey (Report 316). Washington DC: National Center for Educational

Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

Nocentini, A., Calmaestra, J., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Scheithauer, H., Ortega,

R., & Menesini, E. (2010). Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and

definition in three European countries. Australian Journal of Guidance

and Counselling, 20, 129–142.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: bullies and whipping boys.

Hemisphere Press (John Wiley): Washington, D.C.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do.

Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford.

Olweus, D. (1999). Bullying prevention program. Center for the Study and

Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of

Colorado at Boulder: Boulder, CO.

http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_safe_schools_framework.pdf

http://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/national_safe_schools_framework.pdf

http://www.ncab.org.au/


Ozkilic, R. (2012). Bullying toward teachers: An example from Turkey.

Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 95-112.

Pepler, D.J., Craig, W.M., Connolly, J.A., Yuile, A., McMaster, L., & Jiang, D.

(2006). A developmental perspective on bullying. Aggressive Behavior.

32, 376–384.

Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and

cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and

Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental

Health, 4(28), 1-10.

Pikas, A. (1975). Treatment of Mobbing in School: Principles for and the

Results of the Work of an Anti‐Mobbing Group. Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 19(1), 1-12.

Pornari, C.D. & Wood, J. (2009). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary

school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution

bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive Behavior, 36(2), 81-94.

Rigby, K. (2013). Defining bullying: a new look at an old concept. Retrieved

from http://www.kenrigby.net/02a-Defining-bullying-a-new-look

Riley, D., Duncan, D.J., & Edwards, J. (2011). Staff bullying in Australian

schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(1), 7-30.

Saunders, P., Huynh, A. & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2007). Defining workplace

bullying behaviour professional lay definitions of workplace bullying.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4-5), 340-354.

Smith,P.K. and Sharp, S. (Eds.). (1994). School bullying: Insights and

perspectives. London: Routledge.

Skaalvik, E.M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and

relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and

teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611.

Slonje R, & Smith P.K. (2008). Cyberbullying: another main type of bullying?

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49, 147–154.

http://www.kenrigby.net/02a-Defining-bullying-a-new-look


Spears, B.A. (2005). South Australian middle-school girls’ perceptions,

understandings and experiences of peer relationships, bullying and

aggression in single-sex and co-educational settings. Unpublished PhD

Thesis. Flinders University.

Spears, B., Slee, P., Owens, L., & Johnson, B. (2009). Behind the scenes and

screens: Insights into the human dimension of covert and

cyberbullying. Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 189-196.

Student Learning and Support Services Taskforce (2003). National Safe

Schools Framework. Retrieved from

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natsafeschools_file.pd

f

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” Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Terry, A.A. (1998). Teachers as targets of bullying by their pupils: a study to

investigate incidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2),

255-268.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex. Retrieved from http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person

Troman, G. (2000). Teacher stress in the low-trust society. British journal of

sociology of education, 21(3), 331-353.

Ttofi, M.M., & Farrington, D.P. (2010). School bullying: Risk factors, theories

and interventions. Handbook of crime, 427-57.

Turney, L. (2003). Mental health and workplace bullying: The role of power,

professions and 'on the job' training. Advances in Mental Health, 2(2),

99-107.

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natsafeschools_file.pdf

http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/_resources/natsafeschools_file.pdf

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Person


Twemlow, S.W., Fonagy, P., Sacco, F.C., & Brethour, J.R. (2006). Teachers

who bully students: A hidden trauma. International Journal of Social

Psychiatry, 52(3), 187-198.

United States Centers for Disease Control. (2012). Website. retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/

Van der Wal, M.F., De Wit, C.A., & Hirasing, R.A. (2003). Psychosocial health

among young victims and offenders of direct and indirect bullying.

Pediatrics, 111(6), 1312-1317.

Wang, J., Nansel, T.R., & Iannotti, R.J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying:

Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health,

48, 415-417.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment:

associations with caregiver-child relationships, internet use, and

personal characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27(3), 319-336.

Zerillo, C., & Osterman, K.F. (2011). Teacher perceptions of teacher bullying.

Improving Schools, 14(3), 239-257.

http://www.cdc.gov/


Appendix A: Variation in prevalence rates of bullying according to definition

Authors Country Bullying definition Example

measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

Student-to-student bullying

Due et al.

(2005)

Sweden “Bullying is defined as a

deliberate, repeated or

long-term exposure to

negative acts performed

by a person or group of

persons regarded of

higher status or greater

strength than the victim

(Olweus, 1993). Bullying

might be verbal acts

such as threats, insults

or nicknames or physical

acts such as assault or

theft. Also social acts

such as exclusion from

the peer group are

considered bullying.”

(p.129)

‘During this term,

how often have you

been bullied at

school?’

Responses were

recorded into three

levels: (1) never /

once or twice, (2)

sometimes, and (3)

about every week /

all the time.

N/A TP 6.3% TP 5.1% 11-15 yrs

Due et al.

(2005)

Lithuania As above As above N/A TP 41.1% TP 38.2% 11-15 yrs

3 Note: TP = traditional bullying perpetration; CP = cyber-bullying perpetration; TV = traditional bullying victimisation; CV = cyber-bullying victimisation



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

National

Center for

Educational

Statistics

(2011)

USA “Traditional bullying

includes bullying by a

peer that occurred at

school. Students were

asked whether another

student had made fun of

them, called them

names, or insulted

them; spread rumours

about them; threatened

them with harm; pushed

or shoved them; forced

them to do something

they did not want to do;

excluded them from

activities; or destroyed

their property.” (p.10,

Footnote 11)

“Electronic bullying

includes bullying by a

peer that occurred

anywhere via electronic

means, including the

Internet, e-mail, instant

messaging, text

messaging, online

“During this school

year, has any

student bullied you?

That is, has another

student:

(a) Made fun of you,

called you names,

or insulted you?

(b) Spread rumours

about you?

(c) Threatened you

with harm?

(d) Pushed you,

shoved you, tripped

you, or spit on you?

(e) Tried to make

you do things you

did not want to do,

for example, give

them money or

other things?

(f) Excluded you

from activities on

purpose?

(g) Destroyed your

property on

TP 32%

CP 3.7%

N/A N/A 12-18 yrs



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

gaming, and online

communities.” (p.11,

footnote 11)

purpose?”

Cross et al.

(2009)

Australia Bullying: “repeated

behaviour that was

intended to cause harm

to someone who finds it

hard to stop it from

happening.” (p. 399)

‘‘This term, how

often:

(a) were you bullied

by another student

or group of students

again and again?;

and

(b) did you bully

another student or

group of students

again and again?’’

Response categories

were: never, once

or twice, every few

weeks, about once a

week, most days

this term.”

TV 24-29% TP & CP 11%

CP 4%

TP & CP 7%

CP, 3%

8-14 yrs

Hemphill et

al. (2012)

Australia “Traditional bullying

includes aggressive /

negative intentional acts

repeatedly directed (by

one or more individuals)

Traditional bullying:

Students asked had

they “taken part in

bullying another

student(s) at school

TV 28%

CV 14%

TV 28%

CV 13%

TV 15%

CV 16%

14-17 yrs



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

toward victims over

time. When bullying

occurs, there is typically

a power imbalance

between perpetrators

and victims, with victims

often being unable to

easily defend

themselves from

perpetrators (Olweus,

1993).” (p .60)

recently.”

Cyberbullying:

Students asked in

the past 12 months

they had “bullied

another student

using technology,

such as mobile

telephones, the

Internet, computers,

answering

machines, or

cameras?”

Ybarra &

Mitchell

(2004)

USA “Both online and offline

bullying are rooted in

aggression, though

bullying is typically

defined as acting out

towards someone

known to the aggressor,

whereas Internet

harassment may be

directed at a victim

unknown to the

provoker.” (p. 321)

“Youth were asked

if they had engaged

in two possible

online harassment

behaviours in the

past year:

(a) making rude or

nasty comments to

someone on the

Internet, or

(b) using the

Internet to harass

CP 15% N/A N/A 10-17 yrs



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

or embarrass

someone with

whom the youth

was mad.”

Teacher-to-student bullying

Twemlow

et al.

(2006)

USA “A bullying teacher was

defined as a teacher

who uses his / her

power to punish,

manipulate or disparage

a student beyond what

would be a reasonable

disciplinary procedure.”

(p. 191)

Asked teachers:

“How many

teachers have you

known to bully

students in the past

school year: 0, 1, 2,

3, 6.”

Isolated cases

70%

Frequent cases

18%

32% knew

teachers who

had bullied (1-6

teachers)

45% teachers

had bullied

N/A N/A K to Grade 5

McEvoy

(2005)

Not

stated

“Bullying by teachers ...

is an abuse of power

that tends to be chronic

and often is expressed

in a public manner.” (p.

1)

“Is there a high

degree of

agreement among

students on which

teachers in a school

are perceived to

bully students?”

47% of students

identified 3 or

more teachers

they considered

bullies

TP 30%

involved only

male teachers

TP 57%

included both

male and

female teachers

TP 12%

involved only

female

teachers

57% included

both male and

female

15-23 yrs



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

teachers

Delfrabbro

et al.

(2006)

Australia “Bullying can usually be

defined as a repeated

pattern of aggressive

behaviour directed

towards another person

who has less status or

power (Rigby, 1997).

Such aggression need

not be physical, and can

include a variety of non-

physical forms such as

emotional and verbal

abuse, threats, as well

as exclusion in which a

person directly, or

indirectly, ostracizes

another person from a

social group.” (p. 72)

“Participants were

presented with five

statements

regarding various

forms of

victimisation (i.e. ‘I

get picked on by

other kids’, ‘I get

picked on by some

teachers’)

Response options:

Rated on a 4-point

scale the extent to

which each of these

had been their

experience both in

school and outside

of school (1 never;

4 very often).”

TV (all) 7.5%

TV (by teachers)

8.5%

TV (all) 9.8%

TV (by

teachers) 10%

TV (all) 5.2%

TV (by

teachers) 7%

High schools

Student-to-teacher bullying

Terry

(1998)

UK “Bullying occurs in

situations where the

victim cannot easily

Teachers were

asked, ‘How often

would you say that

Teachers:

56% bullied at

TV

63% of male

TV

50% of

High schools



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

escape. It occurs when

an uneven balance of

power is exploited and

abused by an individual

or individuals who in

that particular

circumstance have the

advantage. Bullying is

characterised by

persistent, repetitive

acts of physical or

psychological

aggression.” (p. 261)

a pupil or pupils

might have viewed

your actions as

bullying this term?’

least once

36% bullied

sometimes

10% bullied

several times a

week

teachers bullied

once or more

female

teachers

bullied once

or more

Ozkilic

(2012)

Turkey Not stated Not stated TV

39% verbal

bullying

18% physical

bullying

25% social

bullying (e.g.,

gossiping)

11% had their

personal

property

Male teachers

experienced

more physical

bullying

Female

teachers

experienced

more verbal

bullying

Primary and high

schools



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

damaged

Kauppi &

Porhola

(2012a,b)

Finland “A teacher is repeatedly

subjected, by one or

more students, to

interaction that he or

she perceives as

insulting, upsetting, or

intimidating.

Bullying can be verbal,

nonverbal, or physical in

nature.” (p. 399)

“Are your bullies

students whom you

currently teach or

have taught in the

past?”

Response options:

(a) “students, whom

you currently

teach,”

(b) “students whom

you have taught in

the past,” and

(c) “students whom

you have never

taught.”

TV

90% obscene or

inappropriate

comments made

towards them

60-80% various

forms of social

bullying (e.g.,

name calling,

mimicking)

31% physical

bullying

31% damage to

personal

property

CV

7-15% various

forms of cyber-

bullying (e.g.,

email, text

messages,

Male students

more likely to

be perpetrator

N/A Respondents 20-

60yrs (reporting on

experiences in

primary and

secondary schools)



measure/item

Rates in

sample

Rates 3

(males)

Rates

(females)

Age of sample

abusive internet

postings).

Parent-to-teacher bullying

Duncan and

Riley

(2005)

Australia “The definition adopted

for this research was

that used by Salin

(2003, p. 10): repeated

and persistent negative

acts towards one or

more individual(s),

which involve a

persistent power

imbalance and create a

hostile work

environment.” (p. 48)

The questionnaire

consisted mostly of

closed-format items

with some open

ended components.

Parents along

with school

executives were

most likely to be

the bullies of

school staff

N/A N/A Primary and high

schools


Copyright notice and disclaimer

Copyright and all intellectual property rights in this document (‘the material’) are and

remain the property of the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth Ltd

(‘ARACY’).

By accepting delivery of this material and accepting the below terms, you are granted a

limited, royalty-free, worldwide licence to use the material and are bound by the following

terms and conditions in respect of the licence:

1. Provided that you include a copy of this copyright notice on any reproduction,

communication, adaptation or other use, you may reproduce the material,

communicate it to the public, make an adaptation of it or use it in any other way,

subject to the following provisions.

2. You may not use the material in any of the following ways:

a. Any use that fails to attribute ARACY’s authorship of the material;

b. Any use that could be prejudicial to ARACY’s reputation;

c. Any use that does not achieve with the objectives set out in the material;

d. Any use that is illegal or unlawful; or

e. Any commercial use, being any use by reason of which you receive a

payment, profit or benefit in kind.

3. In consideration for the grant of the licence conferred by clauses 1 and 2, you agree

to the following provisions:

a. ARACY is a not-for-profit organisation, and the purpose of the material is the

advancement of the wellbeing of children. As such, you acknowledge ARACY

does not provide the material in the course of trade and commerce.

b. To the maximum extent permitted by law, ARACY makes no warranties,

express or implied, with respect to the material, including without limitation,

any express or implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular

purpose of the material.

c. You expressly agree that your use of, or inability, to use the material is at

your sole risk.

d. To the maximum extent permitted by law, you hereby agree to release and

discharge ARACY from any liability whatsoever arising from or associated with

your use of, or inability to use, the material.

e. To the maximum extent permitted by law, in no case shall ARACY, its

directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors or licensors be

liable for any liability arising from your use of any the material, or for any

other claim related in any way to your use of the material including, but not

limited to any errors or omissions in any content or any loss or damage of

any kind incurred as a result of the use of any content (or product) posted,

transmitted, or otherwise made available by ARACY, even if ARACY have

been advised of the possibility of such a Liability or claim arising.

f. ARACY does not represent or guarantee that the material will be free from

loss, corruption, attack, viruses, interference, hacking or other security

intrusion, and ARACY disclaims any liability relating thereto.


g. ARACY does not represent or guarantee the material’s accuracy or

completion.

4. In the event that you fail to comply with any of the above conditions, ARACY may

terminate your licence to use the material by giving you written notice. Upon receipt

of such a notice, you must immediately return to ARACY or destroy all copies of the

material in your possession or control and advise ARACY of the identity and location

of any persons to whom you have provided copies of the material.

If you disagree with the above terms, then you are not granted a licence to use the material

and you must immediately return all copies of the material in your possession or control to

ARACY.

The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) facilitates collaboration

between commissioning agencies and Australia’s leading experts to produce

What Works for Kids Evidence Reviews

aracy.org.au

a conceptual definition of school-based bullying

Documents