research questions about bullying

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2021

Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study

• Håkan Källmén 1 &
• Mats Hallgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-2403 2  

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume  15 , Article number:  74 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

110k Accesses

18 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

To examine recent trends in bullying and mental health problems among adolescents and the association between them.

A questionnaire measuring mental health problems, bullying at school, socio-economic status, and the school environment was distributed to all secondary school students aged 15 (school-year 9) and 18 (school-year 11) in Stockholm during 2014, 2018, and 2020 (n = 32,722). Associations between bullying and mental health problems were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusting for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors.

The prevalence of bullying remained stable and was highest among girls in year 9; range = 4.9% to 16.9%. Mental health problems increased; range = + 1.2% (year 9 boys) to + 4.6% (year 11 girls) and were consistently higher among girls (17.2% in year 11, 2020). In adjusted models, having been bullied was detrimentally associated with mental health (OR = 2.57 [2.24–2.96]). Reports of mental health problems were four times higher among boys who had been bullied compared to those not bullied. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.4 times higher.

Conclusions

Exposure to bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems. Boys appear to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls.

Introduction

Bullying involves repeated hurtful actions between peers where an imbalance of power exists [ 1 ]. Arseneault et al. [ 2 ] conducted a review of the mental health consequences of bullying for children and adolescents and found that bullying is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm and suicidality. Bullying was shown to have detrimental effects that persist into late adolescence and contribute independently to mental health problems. Updated reviews have presented evidence indicating that bullying is causative of mental illness in many adolescents [ 3 , 4 ].

There are indications that mental health problems are increasing among adolescents in some Nordic countries. Hagquist et al. [ 5 ] examined trends in mental health among Scandinavian adolescents (n = 116, 531) aged 11–15 years between 1993 and 2014. Mental health problems were operationalized as difficulty concentrating, sleep disorders, headache, stomach pain, feeling tense, sad and/or dizzy. The study revealed increasing rates of adolescent mental health problems in all four counties (Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), with Sweden experiencing the sharpest increase among older adolescents, particularly girls. Worsening adolescent mental health has also been reported in the United Kingdom. A study of 28,100 school-aged adolescents in England found that two out of five young people scored above thresholds for emotional problems, conduct problems or hyperactivity [ 6 ]. Female gender, deprivation, high needs status (educational/social), ethnic background, and older age were all associated with higher odds of experiencing mental health difficulties.

Bullying is shown to increase the risk of poor mental health and may partly explain these detrimental changes. Le et al. [ 7 ] reported an inverse association between bullying and mental health among 11–16-year-olds in Vietnam. They also found that poor mental health can make some children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying at school. Bayer et al. [ 8 ] examined links between bullying at school and mental health among 8–9-year-old children in Australia. Those who experienced bullying more than once a week had poorer mental health than children who experienced bullying less frequently. Friendships moderated this association, such that children with more friends experienced fewer mental health problems (protective effect). Hysing et al. [ 9 ] investigated the association between experiences of bullying (as a victim or perpetrator) and mental health, sleep disorders, and school performance among 16–19 year olds from Norway (n = 10,200). Participants were categorized as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (that is, victims who also bullied others). All three categories were associated with worse mental health, school performance, and sleeping difficulties. Those who had been bullied also reported more emotional problems, while those who bullied others reported more conduct disorders [ 9 ].

As most adolescents spend a considerable amount of time at school, the school environment has been a major focus of mental health research [ 10 , 11 ]. In a recent review, Saminathen et al. [ 12 ] concluded that school is a potential protective factor against mental health problems, as it provides a socially supportive context and prepares students for higher education and employment. However, it may also be the primary setting for protracted bullying and stress [ 13 ]. Another factor associated with adolescent mental health is parental socio-economic status (SES) [ 14 ]. A systematic review indicated that lower parental SES is associated with poorer adolescent mental health [ 15 ]. However, no previous studies have examined whether SES modifies or attenuates the association between bullying and mental health. Similarly, it remains unclear whether school related factors, such as school grades and the school environment, influence the relationship between bullying and mental health. This information could help to identify those adolescents most at risk of harm from bullying.

To address these issues, we investigated the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems among Swedish adolescents aged 15–18 years between 2014 and 2020 using a population-based school survey. We also examined associations between bullying at school and mental health problems adjusting for relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and school-related factors. We hypothesized that: (1) bullying and adolescent mental health problems have increased over time; (2) There is an association between bullying victimization and mental health, so that mental health problems are more prevalent among those who have been victims of bullying; and (3) that school-related factors would attenuate the association between bullying and mental health.

Participants

The Stockholm school survey is completed every other year by students in lower secondary school (year 9—compulsory) and upper secondary school (year 11). The survey is mandatory for public schools, but voluntary for private schools. The purpose of the survey is to help inform decision making by local authorities that will ultimately improve students’ wellbeing. The questions relate to life circumstances, including SES, schoolwork, bullying, drug use, health, and crime. Non-completers are those who were absent from school when the survey was completed (< 5%). Response rates vary from year to year but are typically around 75%. For the current study data were available for 2014, 2018 and 2020. In 2014; 5235 boys and 5761 girls responded, in 2018; 5017 boys and 5211 girls responded, and in 2020; 5633 boys and 5865 girls responded (total n = 32,722). Data for the exposure variable, bullied at school, were missing for 4159 students, leaving 28,563 participants in the crude model. The fully adjusted model (described below) included 15,985 participants. The mean age in grade 9 was 15.3 years (SD = 0.51) and in grade 11, 17.3 years (SD = 0.61). As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5). Details of the survey are available via a website [ 16 ], and are described in a previous paper [ 17 ].

Students completed the questionnaire during a school lesson, placed it in a sealed envelope and handed it to their teacher. Student were permitted the entire lesson (about 40 min) to complete the questionnaire and were informed that participation was voluntary (and that they were free to cancel their participation at any time without consequences). Students were also informed that the Origo Group was responsible for collection of the data on behalf of the City of Stockholm.

Study outcome

Mental health problems were assessed by using a modified version of the Psychosomatic Problem Scale [ 18 ] shown to be appropriate for children and adolescents and invariant across gender and years. The scale was later modified [ 19 ]. In the modified version, items about difficulty concentrating and feeling giddy were deleted and an item about ‘life being great to live’ was added. Seven different symptoms or problems, such as headaches, depression, feeling fear, stomach problems, difficulty sleeping, believing it’s great to live (coded negatively as seldom or rarely) and poor appetite were used. Students who responded (on a 5-point scale) that any of these problems typically occurs ‘at least once a week’ were considered as having indicators of a mental health problem. Cronbach alpha was 0.69 across the whole sample. Adding these problem areas, a total index was created from 0 to 7 mental health symptoms. Those who scored between 0 and 4 points on the total symptoms index were considered to have a low indication of mental health problems (coded as 0); those who scored between 5 and 7 symptoms were considered as likely having mental health problems (coded as 1).

Primary exposure

Experiences of bullying were measured by the following two questions: Have you felt bullied or harassed during the past school year? Have you been involved in bullying or harassing other students during this school year? Alternatives for the first question were: yes or no with several options describing how the bullying had taken place (if yes). Alternatives indicating emotional bullying were feelings of being mocked, ridiculed, socially excluded, or teased. Alternatives indicating physical bullying were being beaten, kicked, forced to do something against their will, robbed, or locked away somewhere. The response alternatives for the second question gave an estimation of how often the respondent had participated in bullying others (from once to several times a week). Combining the answers to these two questions, five different categories of bullying were identified: (1) never been bullied and never bully others; (2) victims of emotional (verbal) bullying who have never bullied others; (3) victims of physical bullying who have never bullied others; (4) victims of bullying who have also bullied others; and (5) perpetrators of bullying, but not victims. As the number of positive cases in the last three categories was low (range = 3–15 cases) bully categories 2–4 were combined into one primary exposure variable: ‘bullied at school’.

Assessment year was operationalized as the year when data was collected: 2014, 2018, and 2020. Age was operationalized as school grade 9 (15–16 years) or 11 (17–18 years). Gender was self-reported (boy or girl). The school situation To assess experiences of the school situation, students responded to 18 statements about well-being in school, participation in important school matters, perceptions of their teachers, and teaching quality. Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘fully agree’. To reduce the 18-items down to their essential factors, we performed a principal axis factor analysis. Results showed that the 18 statements formed five factors which, according to the Kaiser criterion (eigen values > 1) explained 56% of the covariance in the student’s experience of the school situation. The five factors identified were: (1) Participation in school; (2) Interesting and meaningful work; (3) Feeling well at school; (4) Structured school lessons; and (5) Praise for achievements. For each factor, an index was created that was dichotomised (poor versus good circumstance) using the median-split and dummy coded with ‘good circumstance’ as reference. A description of the items included in each factor is available as Additional file 1 . Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed with three questions about the education level of the student’s mother and father (dichotomized as university degree versus not), and the amount of spending money the student typically received for entertainment each month (> SEK 1000 [approximately $120] versus less). Higher parental education and more spending money were used as reference categories. School grades in Swedish, English, and mathematics were measured separately on a 7-point scale and dichotomized as high (grades A, B, and C) versus low (grades D, E, and F). High school grades were used as the reference category.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence of mental health problems and bullying at school are presented using descriptive statistics, stratified by survey year (2014, 2018, 2020), gender, and school year (9 versus 11). As noted, we reduced the 18-item questionnaire assessing school function down to five essential factors by conducting a principal axis factor analysis (see Additional file 1 ). We then calculated the association between bullying at school (defined above) and mental health problems using multivariable logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis). To assess the contribution of SES and school-related factors to this association, three models are presented: Crude, Model 1 adjusted for demographic factors: age, gender, and assessment year; Model 2 adjusted for Model 1 plus SES (parental education and student spending money), and Model 3 adjusted for Model 2 plus school-related factors (school grades and the five factors identified in the principal factor analysis). These covariates were entered into the regression models in three blocks, where the final model represents the fully adjusted analyses. In all models, the category ‘not bullied at school’ was used as the reference. Pseudo R-square was calculated to estimate what proportion of the variance in mental health problems was explained by each model. Unlike the R-square statistic derived from linear regression, the Pseudo R-square statistic derived from logistic regression gives an indicator of the explained variance, as opposed to an exact estimate, and is considered informative in identifying the relative contribution of each model to the outcome [ 20 ]. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.0.

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Estimates of the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems across the 12 strata of data (3 years × 2 school grades × 2 genders) are shown in Table 1 . The prevalence of bullying at school increased minimally (< 1%) between 2014 and 2020, except among girls in grade 11 (2.5% increase). Mental health problems increased between 2014 and 2020 (range = 1.2% [boys in year 11] to 4.6% [girls in year 11]); were three to four times more prevalent among girls (range = 11.6% to 17.2%) compared to boys (range = 2.6% to 4.9%); and were more prevalent among older adolescents compared to younger adolescents (range = 1% to 3.1% higher). Pooling all data, reports of mental health problems were four times more prevalent among boys who had been victims of bullying compared to those who reported no experiences with bullying. The corresponding figure for girls was two and a half times as prevalent.

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Table 2 shows the association between bullying at school and mental health problems after adjustment for relevant covariates. Demographic factors, including female gender (OR = 3.87; CI 3.48–4.29), older age (OR = 1.38, CI 1.26–1.50), and more recent assessment year (OR = 1.18, CI 1.13–1.25) were associated with higher odds of mental health problems. In Model 2, none of the included SES variables (parental education and student spending money) were associated with mental health problems. In Model 3 (fully adjusted), the following school-related factors were associated with higher odds of mental health problems: lower grades in Swedish (OR = 1.42, CI 1.22–1.67); uninteresting or meaningless schoolwork (OR = 2.44, CI 2.13–2.78); feeling unwell at school (OR = 1.64, CI 1.34–1.85); unstructured school lessons (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.16–1.47); and no praise for achievements (OR = 1.19, CI 1.06–1.34). After adjustment for all covariates, being bullied at school remained associated with higher odds of mental health problems (OR = 2.57; CI 2.24–2.96). Demographic and school-related factors explained 12% and 6% of the variance in mental health problems, respectively (Pseudo R-Square). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors did not alter the variance explained.

Our findings indicate that mental health problems increased among Swedish adolescents between 2014 and 2020, while the prevalence of bullying at school remained stable (< 1% increase), except among girls in year 11, where the prevalence increased by 2.5%. As previously reported [ 5 , 6 ], mental health problems were more common among girls and older adolescents. These findings align with previous studies showing that adolescents who are bullied at school are more likely to experience mental health problems compared to those who are not bullied [ 3 , 4 , 9 ]. This detrimental relationship was observed after adjustment for school-related factors shown to be associated with adolescent mental health [ 10 ].

A novel finding was that boys who had been bullied at school reported a four-times higher prevalence of mental health problems compared to non-bullied boys. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.5 times higher for those who were bullied compared to non-bullied girls, which could indicate that boys are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls. Alternatively, it may indicate that boys are (on average) bullied more frequently or more intensely than girls, leading to worse mental health. Social support could also play a role; adolescent girls often have stronger social networks than boys and could be more inclined to voice concerns about bullying to significant others, who in turn may offer supports which are protective [ 21 ]. Related studies partly confirm this speculative explanation. An Estonian study involving 2048 children and adolescents aged 10–16 years found that, compared to girls, boys who had been bullied were more likely to report severe distress, measured by poor mental health and feelings of hopelessness [ 22 ].

Other studies suggest that heritable traits, such as the tendency to internalize problems and having low self-esteem are associated with being a bully-victim [ 23 ]. Genetics are understood to explain a large proportion of bullying-related behaviors among adolescents. A study from the Netherlands involving 8215 primary school children found that genetics explained approximately 65% of the risk of being a bully-victim [ 24 ]. This proportion was similar for boys and girls. Higher than average body mass index (BMI) is another recognized risk factor [ 25 ]. A recent Australian trial involving 13 schools and 1087 students (mean age = 13 years) targeted adolescents with high-risk personality traits (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) to reduce bullying at school; both as victims and perpetrators [ 26 ]. There was no significant intervention effect for bullying victimization or perpetration in the total sample. In a secondary analysis, compared to the control schools, intervention school students showed greater reductions in victimization, suicidal ideation, and emotional symptoms. These findings potentially support targeting high-risk personality traits in bullying prevention [ 26 ].

The relative stability of bullying at school between 2014 and 2020 suggests that other factors may better explain the increase in mental health problems seen here. Many factors could be contributing to these changes, including the increasingly competitive labour market, higher demands for education, and the rapid expansion of social media [ 19 , 27 , 28 ]. A recent Swedish study involving 29,199 students aged between 11 and 16 years found that the effects of school stress on psychosomatic symptoms have become stronger over time (1993–2017) and have increased more among girls than among boys [ 10 ]. Research is needed examining possible gender differences in perceived school stress and how these differences moderate associations between bullying and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current study include the large participant sample from diverse schools; public and private, theoretical and practical orientations. The survey included items measuring diverse aspects of the school environment; factors previously linked to adolescent mental health but rarely included as covariates in studies of bullying and mental health. Some limitations are also acknowledged. These data are cross-sectional which means that the direction of the associations cannot be determined. Moreover, all the variables measured were self-reported. Previous studies indicate that students tend to under-report bullying and mental health problems [ 29 ]; thus, our results may underestimate the prevalence of these behaviors.

In conclusion, consistent with our stated hypotheses, we observed an increase in self-reported mental health problems among Swedish adolescents, and a detrimental association between bullying at school and mental health problems. Although bullying at school does not appear to be the primary explanation for these changes, bullying was detrimentally associated with mental health after adjustment for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors, confirming our third hypothesis. The finding that boys are potentially more vulnerable than girls to the deleterious effects of bullying should be replicated in future studies, and the mechanisms investigated. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between bullying and mental health, including which factors mediate/moderate this relationship. Epigenetic studies are also required to better understand the complex interaction between environmental and biological risk factors for adolescent mental health [ 24 ].

Availability of data and materials

Data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis; please email the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Olweus D. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(9):751–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L. The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 .

Hagquist C, Due P, Torsheim T, Valimaa R. Cross-country comparisons of trends in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms—a Rasch analysis of HBSC data from four Nordic countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1097-x .

Deighton J, Lereya ST, Casey P, Patalay P, Humphrey N, Wolpert M. Prevalence of mental health problems in schools: poverty and other risk factors among 28 000 adolescents in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(3):565–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.19 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le HTH, Tran N, Campbell MA, Gatton ML, Nguyen HT, Dunne MP. Mental health problems both precede and follow bullying among adolescents and the effects differ by gender: a cross-lagged panel analysis of school-based longitudinal data in Vietnam. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0291-x .

Bayer JK, Mundy L, Stokes I, Hearps S, Allen N, Patton G. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;23(4):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12261 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hysing M, Askeland KG, La Greca AM, Solberg ME, Breivik K, Sivertsen B. Bullying involvement in adolescence: implications for sleep, mental health, and academic outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853409 .

Hogberg B, Strandh M, Hagquist C. Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years—the role of school-related stress. Soc Sci Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890 .

Kidger J, Araya R, Donovan J, Gunnell D. The effect of the school environment on the emotional health of adolescents: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):925–49. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2248 .

Saminathen MG, Låftman SB, Modin B. En fungerande skola för alla: skolmiljön som skyddsfaktor för ungas psykiska välbefinnande. [A functioning school for all: the school environment as a protective factor for young people’s mental well-being]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2020;97(5–6):804–16.

Google Scholar  

Bibou-Nakou I, Tsiantis J, Assimopoulos H, Chatzilambou P, Giannakopoulou D. School factors related to bullying: a qualitative study of early adolescent students. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15(2):125–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1 .

Vukojevic M, Zovko A, Talic I, Tanovic M, Resic B, Vrdoljak I, Splavski B. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. 2017;56(4):742–8. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23 .

Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;90:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026 .

Stockholm City. Stockholmsenkät (The Stockholm Student Survey). 2021. https://start.stockholm/aktuellt/nyheter/2020/09/presstraff-stockholmsenkaten-2020/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Zeebari Z, Lundin A, Dickman PW, Hallgren M. Are changes in alcohol consumption among swedish youth really occurring “in concert”? A new perspective using quantile regression. Alc Alcohol. 2017;52(4):487–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx020 .

Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Social Indicat Res. 2008;86(3):511–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9186-3 .

Hagquist C. Ungas psykiska hälsa i Sverige–komplexa trender och stora kunskapsluckor [Young people’s mental health in Sweden—complex trends and large knowledge gaps]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2013;90(5):671–83.

Wu W, West SG. Detecting misspecification in mean structures for growth curve models: performance of pseudo R(2)s and concordance correlation coefficients. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(3):455–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797829 .

Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J Youth Adolscence. 2007;36(8):984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Mark L, Varnik A, Sisask M. Who suffers most from being involved in bullying-bully, victim, or bully-victim? J Sch Health. 2019;89(2):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12720 .

Tsaousis I. The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;31:186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005 .

Veldkamp SAM, Boomsma DI, de Zeeuw EL, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bartels M, Dolan CV, van Bergen E. Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behav Genet. 2019;49(5):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5 .

Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1187 .

Kelly EV, Newton NC, Stapinski LA, Conrod PJ, Barrett EL, Champion KE, Teesson M. A novel approach to tackling bullying in schools: personality-targeted intervention for adolescent victims and bullies in Australia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.010 .

Gunnell D, Kidger J, Elvidge H. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2608 .

O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23:601–13.

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggr Behav. 2004;30(5):373–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20030 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Department for Social Affairs, Stockholm, for permission to use data from the Stockholm School Survey.

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems (STAD), Center for Addiction Research and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

Håkan Källmén

Epidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance Use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Level 6, Solnavägen 1e, Solna, Sweden

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HK conceived the study and analyzed the data (with input from MH). HK and MH interpreted the data and jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Källmén, H., Hallgren, M. Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 15 , 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Adolescents
• School-related factors
• Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Understanding alternative bullying perspectives through research engagement with young people.

• School of Education and Social Care, Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, United Kingdom

Bullying research has traditionally been dominated by largescale cohort studies focusing on the personality traits of bullies and victims. These studies focus on bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes. A limitation of this approach is that it does not explain why bullying happens. Qualitative research can help shed light on these factors. This paper discusses the findings from four mainly qualitative research projects including a systematic review and three empirical studies involving young people to various degrees within the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research. Much quantitative research suggests that young people are a homogenous group and through the use of surveys and other large scale methods, generalizations can be drawn about how bullying is understood and how it can be dealt with. Findings from the studies presented in this paper, add to our understanding that young people appear particularly concerned about the role of wider contextual and relational factors in deciding if bullying has happened. These studies underscore the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Moreover, to appreciate the relational and social contexts underpinning bullying behaviors, adults and young people need to work together on bullying agendas and engage with multiple definitions, effects and forms of support. Qualitative methodologies, in particular participatory research opens up the complexities of young lives and enables these insights to come to the fore. Through this approach, effective supports can be designed based on what young people want and need rather than those interpreted as supportive through adult understanding.

Introduction

Research on school bullying has developed rapidly since the 1970s. Originating in social and psychological research in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, this body of research largely focusses on individualized personality traits of perpetrators and victims ( Olweus, 1995 ). Global interest in this phenomenon subsequently spread and bullying research began in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ). Usually quantitative in nature, many studies examine bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes ( Patton et al., 2017 ). Whilst quantitative research collates key demographic information to show variations in bullying behaviors and tendencies, this dominant bullying literature fails to explain why bullying happens. Nor does it attempt to understand the wider social contexts in which bullying occurs. Qualitative research on the other hand, in particular participatory research, can help shed light on these factors by highlighting the complexities of the contextual and relational aspects of bullying and the particular challenges associated with addressing it. Patton et al. (2017) in their systematic review of qualitative methods used in bullying research, found that the use of such methods can enhance academic and practitioner understanding of bullying.

In this paper, I draw on four bullying studies; one systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative research ( O’Brien, 2009 ) and three empirical qualitative studies ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ; O’Brien, 2016 , 2017 ) (see Table 1 below). I discuss how participatory research methodologies, to varying degrees, were used to facilitate bullying knowledge production among teams of young people and adults. Young people in these presented studies were consequently involved in the research process along a continuum of involvement ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ). To the far left of the continuum, young people involved in research are referred to as “active respondents” and their data informs teacher practice. To the middle of the continuum sit “students as co-researchers” who work with teachers to explore an issue which has been identified by that teacher. Finally to the right, sit “students as researchers” who conduct their own research with support from teachers. Moving from left to right of the continuum shows a shift in power dynamics between young people and adults where a partnership develops. Young people are therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspective, that of being a young person now.

Table 1. The studies.

In this paper, I advocate for the active involvement of young people in the research process in order to enhance bullying knowledge. Traditional quantitative studies have a tendency to homogenize young people by suggesting similarity in thinking about what constitutes bullying. However, qualitative studies have demonstrated that regardless of variables, young people understand bullying in different ways so there is a need for further research that starts from these perspectives and focusses on issues that young people deem important. Consequently, participatory research allows for the stories of the collective to emerge without losing the stories of the individual, a task not enabled through quantitative approaches.

What Is Bullying?

Researching school bullying has been problematic and is partly related to the difficulty in defining it ( Espelage, 2018 ). Broadly speaking, bullying is recognized as aggressive, repeated, intentional behavior involving an imbalance of power aimed toward an individual or group of individuals who cannot easily defend themselves ( Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ). In more recent times, “traditional” bullying behaviors have been extended to include cyber-bullying, involving the use of the internet and mobile-phones ( Espelage, 2018 ). Disagreements have been noted in the literature about how bullying is defined by researchers linked to subject discipline and culture. Some researchers for example, disagree about the inclusion or not of repetition in definitions ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ) and these disagreements have had an impact on interpreting findings and prevalence rates. However, evidence further suggests that young people also view bullying in different ways ( Guerin and Hennessy, 2002 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) explored differences between researchers and young people’s definitions of bullying, and found that children’s definitions were usually spontaneous, and did not always encompass the elements of repetition, power imbalance and intent. They concluded, that children need to be provided with a bullying definition so similarities and comparisons can be drawn. In contrast, Huang and Cornell (2015) found no evidence that the inclusion of a definition effected prevalence rates. Their findings, they suggest, indicate that young people use their own perceptions of bullying when answering self-report questionnaires and they are not influenced by an imposed definition.

Nevertheless, differences in children and young people’s bullying definitions are evident in the research literature and have been explained by recourse to age and stage of development ( Smith et al., 2002 ) and their assumed lack of understanding about what constitutes bullying ( Boulton and Flemington, 1996 ). Naylor et al. (2001) for example, found that younger children think similarly in their definitions of bullying, while Smith et al. (2002) found that 8 year olds did not distinguish as clearly between different forms of behavioral aggression as 14 year olds. Methodological limitations associated with understanding bullying have been identified by Forsberg et al. (2018) and Maunder and Crafter (2018) . These authors postulate that quantitative approaches, although providing crucial insights in understanding bullying, are reliant on pre-defined variables, which can shield some of the complexities that qualitative designs can unravel, as individual experiences of bullying are brought to the fore. Indeed, La Fontaine (1991) suggests that unlike standard self-report questionnaires and other quantitative methods used to collect bullying data, analyzing qualitative data such as those collected from a helpline, enables the voice of young people to be heard and consequently empowers adults to understand bullying on their terms rather than relying solely on interpretations and perceptions of adults. Moore and Maclean (2012) collected survey, as well as interview and focus group data, on victimization occurring on the journey to and from school. They found that what young people determined as victimization varied and was influenced by a multifaceted array of circumstances, some of which adults were unaware of. Context for example, played an important role where certain behaviors in one situation could be regarded as victimization while in another they were not. Specific behaviors including ignoring an individual was particularly hurtful and supporting a friend who was the subject of victimization could lead to their own victimization.

Lee (2006) suggests that some bullying research does not reflect individual experiences, and are thus difficult for participants to relate to. Canty et al. (2016) reiterates this and suggests that when researchers provide young people with bullying definitions in which to position their own experiences, this can mask some of the complexities that the research intends to uncover. Such approaches result in an oversight into the socially constructed and individual experiences of bullying ( Eriksen, 2018 ). Griffin and Gross (2004) further argue that when researchers use vague or ambiguous definitions an “overclassification of children as bullies or victims” (p. 381) ensues. Consequently, quantitative research does not consider children as reliable in interpreting their own lived experiences and therefore some of the interactions they consider as bullying, that do not fit within the conventional definitions, are concealed. This approach favors the adult definition of bullying regarding it as “more reliable” than the definitions of children and young people Canty et al. (2016) . The perceived “seriousness” of bullying has also been explored. Overall, young people and adults are more likely to consider direct bullying (face-to-face actions including hitting, threatening and calling names) as “more serious” than indirect bullying (rumor spreading, social exclusion, forcing others to do something they do not want to do) ( Maunder et al., 2010 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2011 ). This perception of “seriousness,” alongside ambiguous definitions of bullying, has further implications for reporting it. Despite the advice given to young people to report incidents of school bullying ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ), the literature suggests that many are reluctant to do so ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ).

Several factors have been highlighted as to why young people are reluctant to report bullying ( Black et al., 2010 ). deLara (2012) , found apprehension in reporting bullying to teachers due to the fear that they will either not do enough or too much and inadvertently make the situation worse, or fear that teachers will not believe young people. Research also shows that young people are reluctant to tell their parents about bullying due to perceived over-reaction and fear that the bullying will be reported to their school ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ). Oliver and Candappa (2007) suggest that young people are more likely to confide in their friends than adults (see also Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, if young people believe they are being bullied, but are unable to recognize their experiences within a predefined definition of bullying, this is likely to impact on their ability to report it.

Research from psychology, sociology, education and other disciplines, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, have enabled the generation of bullying knowledge to date. However, in order to understand why bullying happens and how it is influenced by wider social constructs there is a need for further qualitative studies, which hear directly from children and young people themselves. The next section of this paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, which recognizes that young people are active agents in generating new bullying knowledge alongside adults.

Theoretical Underpinnings – Hearing From Children and Young People

The sociology of childhood ( James, 2007 ; Tisdall and Punch, 2012 ) and children’s rights agenda more broadly ( United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ) have offered new understandings and methods for research which recognize children and young people as active agents and experts on their own lives. From this perspective, research is conducted with rather than on children and young people ( Kellett, 2010 ).

Participatory methodologies have proven particularly useful for involving young people in research as co-researchers (see for example O’Brien and Moules, 2007 ; Stoudt, 2009 ; Kellett, 2010 ; Spears et al., 2016 ). This process of enquiry actively involves those normally being studied in research activities. Previously, “traditional” researchers devalued the experiences of research participants arguing that due to their distance from them, they themselves are better equipped to interpret these experiences ( Beresford, 2006 ). However, Beresford (2006) suggests that the shorter the distance between direct experience and interpretation, the less distorted and inaccurate the resulting knowledge is likely to be. Jones (2004) further advocates that when young people’s voices are absent from research about them the research is incomplete. Certainly Spears et al. (2016) , adopted this approach in their study with the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Australia. Young people played an active role within a multidisciplinary team alongside researchers, practitioners and policymakers to co-create and co-evaluate the learning from four marketing campaigns for youth wellbeing through participatory research. Through this methodological approach, findings show that young people were able to reconceptualize mental health and wellbeing from their own perspectives as well as share their lived experiences with others ( Spears et al., 2016 ). Bland and Atweh (2007) , Ozer and Wright (2012) , highlight the benefits afforded to young people through this process, including participating in dialog with decision-makers and bringing aspects of teaching and learning to their attention.

Against this background, data presented for this paper represents findings from four studies underpinned by the ethos that bullying is socially constructed and is best understood by exploring the context to which it occurs ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). This socially constructed view focusses on the evolving positions within young people’s groups, and argues that within a bullying situation sometimes a young person is the bully, sometimes the victim and sometimes the bystander/witness, which contrasts the traditional view of bullying ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). The focus therefore is on group relationships and dynamics. For that reason, Horton (2011) proposes that if bullying is an extensive problem including many young people, then focusing entirely on personality traits will not generate new bullying knowledge and will be problematic in terms of interventions. It is important to acknowledge that this change in focus and view of bullying and how it is manifested in groups, does not negate the individual experiences of bullying rather the focus shifts to the process of being accepted, or not, by the group ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

The Studies

This section provides a broad overview of the four included studies underpinned by participatory methodologies. Table 1 presents the details of each study. Young people were involved in the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research, along a continuum as identified by Bragg and Fielding (2005) . This ranged from “active respondents” to the left of the continuum, “students as co-researchers” in the middle and “students as researchers” to the right of the continuum. Young people were therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspectives ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ).

A key finding from study one ( O’Brien, 2009 ) was the lack of voice afforded to young people through the research process and can be seen to reflect the far left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum, as young people were not directly involved as “active respondents” but their views were included in secondary data analysis and informed the studies that followed. For example, the quantitative studies used an agreed academic definition of bullying which may or may not have influenced how young participants defined bullying within the studies. On the other hand, the qualitative study involved a group of students in deciding which questions to ask of the research participants and in interpreting the findings.

In contrast, study two ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ) was commissioned and led by a group of young people called PEAR (Public health, Education, Awareness, Researchers), who were established to advise on public health research in England. PEAR members were based in two large English cities and comprised 20 young people aged between 13 and 20 years. The premise of the study was that PEAR members wanted to commission research into cyber bullying and the effects this has on mental health from the perspectives of young people rather than adult perspectives. This project was innovative as young people commissioned the research and participated as researchers ( Davey, 2011 ) and can be seen to reflect the middle “students as co-researchers” as well as moving toward to right “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum. Although the young people did not carry out the day-to-day work on the project, they were responsible for leading and shaping it. More importantly, the research topic and focus were decided with young people and adults together.

Study three ( O’Brien, 2016 ) involved five self-selecting students from an independent day and boarding school who worked with me to answer this question: What do young people in this independent day and boarding school view as the core issue of bullying in the school and how do they want to address this? These students called themselves R4U (Research for You) with the slogan researching for life without fear . Three cycles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) ensued, where decision making about direction of the research, including methods, analysis and dissemination of findings were made by the research team. As current students of the school, R4U had a unique “insider knowledge” that complemented my position as the “academic researcher.” By working together to generate understanding about bullying at the school, the findings thus reflected this diversity in knowledge. As the project evolved so too did the involvement of the young researchers and my knowledge as the “outsider” (see O’Brien et al., 2018a for further details). Similar to study two, this project is situated between the middle: “students as co-researchers” and the right: “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum.

Study four ( O’Brien, 2017 ) was small-scale and involved interviewing four young people who were receiving support from a charity providing therapeutic and educational support to young people who self-exclude from school due to anxiety, as a result of bullying. Self-exclusion, for the purposes of this study, means that a young person has made a decision not to go to school. It is different from “being excluded” or “truanting” because these young people do not feel safe at school and are therefore too anxious to attend. Little is known about the experiences of young people who self-exclude due to bullying and this study helped to unravel some of these issues. This study reflects the left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum where the young people were involved as “active respondents” in informing adult understanding of the issue.

A variety of research methods were used across the four studies including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups (see Table 1 for more details). In studies two and three, young researchers were fundamental in deciding the types of questions to be asked, where they were asked and who we asked. In study three the young researchers conducted their own peer-led interviews. The diversity of methods used across the studies are a strength for this paper. An over-reliance on one method is not portrayed and the methods used reflected the requirements of the individual studies.

Informed Consent

Voluntary positive agreement to participate in research is referred to as “consent” while “assent,” refers to a person’s compliance to participate ( Coyne, 2010 ). The difference in these terms are normally used to distinguish the “legal competency of children over and under 16 years in relation to research.” ( Coyne, 2010 , 228). In England, children have a legal right to consent so therefore assent is non-applicable ( Coyne, 2010 ). However, there are still tensions surrounding the ability of children and young people under the age of 18 years to consent in research which are related to their vulnerability, age and stage of development ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ). The research in the three empirical studies (two, three and four) started from the premise that all young participants were competent to consent to participate and took the approach of Coyne (2010) who argues that parental/carer consent is not always necessary in social research. University Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are nonetheless usually unfamiliar with the theoretical underpinnings that children are viewed as social actors and generally able to consent for themselves ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ; Fox, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2015 ).

In order to ensure the young people in these reported studies were fully informed of the intentions of each project and to adhere to ethical principles, age appropriate participant information sheets were provided to all participants detailing each study’s requirements. Young people were then asked to provide their own consent by signing a consent form, any questions they had about the studies were discussed. Information sheets were made available to parents in studies three and four. In study two, the parents of young people participating in the focus groups were informed of the study through the organizations used to recruit the young people. My full contact details were provided on these sheets so parents/carers could address any queries they had about the project if they wished. When young people participated in the online questionnaire (study two) we did not know who they were so could not provide separate information to parents. Consequently, all participants were given the opportunity to participate in the research without the consent of their parents/carers unless they were deemed incompetent to consent. In this case the onus was on the adult (parent or carer for example) to prove incompetency ( Alderson, 2007 ). Favorable ethical approval, including approval for the above consent procedures, was granted by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University.

In the next section I provide a synthesis of the findings across the four studies before discussing how participatory research with young people can offer new understandings of bullying and its impacts on young people.

Although each study was designed to answer specific bullying research questions, the following key themes cut across all four studies 1 :

• Bullying definitions

◦ Behaviors

• Impact of bullying on victim

• Reporting bullying

Bullying Definitions

Young people had various understandings about what they considered bullying to be. Overall, participants agreed that aggressive direct behaviors, mainly focusing on physical aggression, constituted bullying:

“…if someone is physically hurt then that is bullying straight away.” (Female, study 3).

“I think [cyber-bullying is] not as bad because with verbal or physical, you are more likely to come in contact with your attacker regularly, and that can be disturbing. However, with cyber-bullying it is virtual so you can find ways to avoid the person.” (Female, study 2).

Name-calling was an ambiguous concept, young people generally believed that in isolation name-calling might not be bullying behavior or it could be interpreted as “joking” or “banter”:

“I never really see any, a bit of name calling and taking the mick but nothing ever serious.” (Male, study 3).

The concept of “banter” or “joking” was explored in study three as a result of the participatory design. Young people suggested “banter” involves:

“…a personal joke or group banter has no intention to harm another, it is merely playful jokes.” (Female, study 3).

However, underpinning this understanding of “banter” was the importance of intentionality:

“Banter saying things bad as a joke and everyone knows it is a joke.” (Male, study 3).

“Banter” was thus contentious when perception and reception were ambiguous. In some cases, “banter” was considered “normal behavior”:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke…” (Male, study 3).

The same view was evident in relation to cyber-bullying. Some participants were rather dismissive of this approach suggesting that it did not exist:

“I don’t really think it exists. If you’re being cyber-“bullied” then there is something wrong with you- it is insanely easy to avoid, by blocking people and so on. Perhaps it consists of people insulting you online?” (Male, study 2).

When young people considered additional factors added to name calling such as the type of name-calling, or aspects of repetition or intention, then a different view was apparent.

“…but it has to be constant it can’t be a single time because that always happens.” (Male, study 3).

Likewise with words used on social media, young people considered intentionality in their consideration of whether particular behaviors were bullying, highlighting important nuances in how bullying is conceptualized:

“Some people they don’t want to sound cruel but because maybe if you don’t put a smiley face on it, it might seem cruel when sometimes you don’t mean it.” (Female, study 2).

Study one also found that young people were more likely to discuss sexist or racist bullying in interviews or focus groups but this information was scarce in the questionnaire data. This is possibly as a result of how the questions were framed and the researchers’ perspectives informing the questions.

Evident across the four studies was the understanding young people had about the effects of continuous name-calling on victims:

“…you can take one comment, you can just like almost brush it off, but if you keep on being bullied and bullied and bullied then you might kind of think, hang on a minute, they’ve taken it a step too far, like it’s actually become more personal, whereas just like a cheeky comment between friends it’s become something that’s more serious and more personal and more annoying or hurtful to someone.” (Female, study 3).

“Cyber-bullying is basically still verbal bullying and is definitely psychological bullying. Any bullying is psychological though, really. And any bullying is going to be harmful.” (Female, study 2).

Aspects of indirect bullying (social exclusion) were features of studies one and three. For the most part, the research reviewed in study one found that as young people got older they were less likely to consider characteristics of social exclusion in their definitions of bullying. In study three, when discussing the school’s anti-bullying policy, study participants raised questions about “ isolating a student from a friendship group .” Some contested this statement as a form of bullying:

“…. there is avoiding, as in, not actively playing a role in trying to be friends which I don’t really see as bullying I see this as just not getting someone to join your friendship group. Whereas if you were actually leaving him out and rejecting him if he tries to be friends then I think I would see that as malicious and bullying.” (Male, study 3).

“Isolating a student from a friendship group – I believe there are various reasons for which a student can be isolated from a group – including by choice.” (Female, study 3).

Cyber-bullying was explored in detail in study two but less so in the other three studies. Most study two participants considered that cyber-bullying was just as harmful, or in some cases worse than, ‘traditional’ bullying due to the use of similar forms of “harassment,” “antagonizing,” “tormenting,” and ‘threatening’ through online platforms. Some young people believed that the physical distance between the victim and the bully is an important aspect of cyber-bullying:

“I think it’s worse because people find it easier to abuse someone when not face to face.” (Male, study 2).

“I think it could be worse, because lots of other people can get involved, whereas when it’s physical bullying it’s normally just between one or two or a smaller group, things could escalate too because especially Facebook, they’ve got potential to escalate.” (Female, study 2).

Other participants in study two spoke about bullying at school which transfers to an online platform highlighting no “escape” for some. In addition, it was made clearer that some young people considered distancing in relation to bullying and how this influences perceptions of severity:

“…when there’s an argument it can continue when you’re not at school or whatever and they can continue it over Facebook and everyone can see it then other people get involved.” (Female, study 2).

“I was cyber-bullied on Facebook, because someone put several hurtful comments in response to my status updates and profile pictures. This actually was extended into school by the bully…” (Male, study 2).

Impact of Bullying on Victim

Although bullying behaviors were a primary consideration of young people’s understanding of bullying, many considered the consequences associated with bullying and in particular, the impact on mental health. In these examples, the specifics of the bullying event were irrelevant to young people and the focus was on how the behavior was received by the recipient.

In study two, young people divulged how cyber-bullying had adversely affected their ability to go to school and to socialize outside school. Indeed some young people reported the affects it had on their confidence and self-esteem:

“I developed anorexia nervosa. Although not the single cause of my illness, bullying greatly contributed to my low self-esteem which led to becoming ill.” (Female, study 2).

“It hurts people’s feelings and can even lead to committing suicide….” (Female, study 2).

Across the studies, young people who had been bullied themselves shared their individual experiences:

“….you feel insecure and it just builds up and builds up and then in the end you have no self-confidence.” (Female, study 2).

“…it was an everyday thing I just couldn’t take it and it was causing me a lot of anxiety.” (Male, study 4).

“I am different to everyone in my class …. I couldn’t take it no more I was upset all the time and it made me feel anxious and I wasn’t sleeping but spent all my time in bed being sad and unhappy.” (Male, study 4).

Young people who had not experienced bullying themselves agreed that the impact it had on a person was a large determiner of whether bullying had happened:

“When your self-confidence is severely affected and you become shy. Also when you start believing what the bullies are saying about you and start to doubt yourself.” (Female, study 3).

“…it makes the victim feel bad about themselves which mostly leads to depression and sadness.” (Male, study 2).

Further evidence around the impact of bullying was apparent in the data in terms of how relational aspects can affect perceived severity. In the case of cyber-bullying, young people suggested a sense of detachment because the bullying takes place online. Consequently, as the relational element is removed bullying becomes easier to execute:

“…because people don’t have to face them over a computer so it’s so much easier. It’s so much quicker as well cos on something like Facebook it’s not just you, you can get everyone on Facebook to help you bully that person.” (Female, study 2).

“Due to technology being cheaper, it is easier for young people to bully people in this way because they don’t believe they can be tracked.” (Male, study 2).

“The effects are the same and often the bullying can be worse as the perpetrator is unknown or can disguise their identity. Away from the eyes of teachers etc., more can be done without anyone knowing.” (Female, study 2).

Relational aspects of bullying were further highlighted with regards to how “banter” was understood, particularly with in-group bullying and how the same example can either be seen as “banter” or bullying depending on the nature of the relationship:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke. well, I haven’t done it but I’ve been in a crowd where people do it, so I don’t want to get involved just in case it started an argument.” (Female, study 3).

“But it also depends…who your groups with, for example, if I spoke to my friends from [School]… I wouldn’t like use taboo language with them because to them it may seem inappropriate and probably a bit shocked, but if I was with my friends outside of school we use taboo language, we’ll be ourselves and we’ll be comfortable with it, and if a stranger walked past and heard us obviously they’d be thinking that we’re being bullied ourselves.” (Female, study 3).

Furthermore, how individuals are perceived by others tended to influence whether they were believed or not. In study four for example, participants suggested that who the bullies were within the school might have impacted how complaints were acted upon by school officials:

“When I went to the school about it, the students said I had attacked them – all eight of them! I just realized that no one believes me….” (Female, study 4).

While in study three, a characteristic of bullying was the influence the aggressor has over the victim:

“When the victim starts to feel in danger or start to fear the other person. Consequently he or she tries to avoid the bad guy (or girl!)” (Male, study 3).

These relational and contextual issues also influenced a young person’s ability to report bullying.

Reporting Bullying

Young people were more likely to report bullying when they considered it was ‘serious’ enough. Just under half of participants in study two sought emotional/practical support if they worried about, or were affected by cyber-bullying, with most talking to their parents. In study three, young people were less likely to seek support but when they did, most went to their teachers. In study four, all participants reported bullying in school where they did not feel supported.

Fear of making the bullying worse was captured across the studies as a reason for not reporting it:

“I’m scared that if I tell then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“The bully might bully you if he finds out.” (Male, study 3).

Being able to deal with the incident themselves was also a reason for non-reporting:

“…it’s embarrassing and not necessary, my friends help me through it, adults never seem to understand.” (Female, study 2).

“I don’t tend to talk to anyone about it, I just keep it to myself and obviously that’s the worst thing you should ever do, you should never keep it to yourself, because I regret keeping it to myself to be honest….” (Female, study 3).

“…but I think I’d deal with it myself ‘cos. I was quite insecure but now I’m quite secure with myself, so I’ll sort it out myself. I think it’s just over time I’ve just sort of hardened to it.” (Male, study 3).

Most young people seeking support for bullying said they spoke to an adult but the helpfulness of this support varied. This finding is important for understanding relationships between young people and adults. Those who felt supported by their teachers for example, suggested that they took the time to listen and understood what they were telling them. They also reassured young people who in turn believed that the adult they confided in would know what to do:

“So I think the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she’s a good listener and she can sense when you don’t want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers force it out of you.” (Female, study 3).

“My school has had assemblies about cyber-bullying and ways you can stop it or you can report it anonymously…. you can write your name or you can’t, it’s all up to YOU.” (Male, study 2).

Others however had a negative experience of reporting bullying and a number of reasons were provided as to why. Firstly, young people stated that adults did not believe them which made the bullying worse on some level:

“I went to the teachers a couple of times but, no, I don’t think they could do anything. I did sort of go three times and it still kept on going, so I just had to sort of deal with it and I sort of took it on the cheek….” (Male, study 3).

Secondly, young people suggested that adults did not always listen to their concerns, or in some cases did not take their concerns seriously enough:

“…I had had a really bad day with the girls so I came out and I explained all this to my head of year and how it was affecting me but instead of supporting me he put me straight into isolation.” (Male, study 4).

“I could understand them thinking I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with one incident but this was 18 months of me constantly reporting different incidents.” (Female, study 4).

“If cyber-bullying is brought to our school’s attention, usually, they expect printed proof of the situation and will take it into their own hand depending on its seriousness. However this is usually a couple of detentions. And it’s just not enough.” (Female, study 2).

Finally, some young people suggested that teachers did not always know what to do when bullying concerns were raised and consequently punished those making the complaint:

“I think I would have offered support instead of punishment to someone who was suffering with anxiety. I wouldn’t have seen anxiety as bad behavior I think that’s quite ignorant but they saw it as bad behavior.” (Male, study 4).

It is worth reiterating, that the majority of young people across the studies did not report bullying to anybody , which further underscores the contextual issues underpinning bullying and its role in enabling or disabling bullying behaviors. Some considered it was “pointless” reporting the bullying and others feared the situation would be made worse if they did:

“My school hide and say that bullying doesn’t go on cos they don’t wanna look bad for Ofsted.” (Male, study 2).

“My school is oblivious to anything that happens, many things against school rules happen beneath their eyes but they either refuse to acknowledge it or are just not paying attention so we must suffer.” (Female, study 2).

“That’s why I find that when you get bullied you’re scared of telling because either, in most cases the teacher will – oh yeah, yeah, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out and then they don’t tend to, and then they get bullied more for it.” (Female, study 3).

Young people were concerned that reporting bullying would have a negative impact on their friendship groups. Some were anxious about disrupting the status quo within:

“I think everyone would talk about me behind my back and say I was mean and everyone would hate me.” (Female, study 3).

Others expressed concern about the potential vulnerability they were likely to experience if they raised concerns of bullying:

“I was worried it might affect my other friendships.”(Boy, study 2).

“I’m scared that if I tell, then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“….because they might tell off the bullies and then the bullies will like get back at you.” (Female, study 3).

These findings underscore the importance of contextual and relational factors in understanding bullying from the perspectives of young people and how these factors influence a young person’s ability or willingness to report bullying.

Finally one young person who had self-excluded from school due to severe bullying suggested that schools:

“…need to be looking out for their students’ mental wellbeing – not only be there to teach them but to support and mentor them. Keep them safe really… I missed out on about three years of socializing outside of school because I just couldn’t do it. I think it’s important that students are encouraged to stand up for each other.” (Female, study 4).

The studies presented in this paper illustrate the multitude of perceptions underpinning young people’s understandings of what constitutes bullying, both in terms of the behavior and also the impact that this behavior has on an individual. In turn, the ambiguity of what constitutes bullying had an impact on a young person’s ability to seek support. Discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups are shown, highlighting the fluid and changing roles that occur within a bullying situation. Findings from quantitative studies have demonstrated the differing perceptions of bullying by adults and young people (see for example Smith et al., 2002 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ; Maunder et al., 2010 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ). However, by combining findings from participatory research, new understandings of the relational and contextual factors important to young people come to the fore.

Young people participating in these four studies had unique knowledge and experiences of bullying and the social interactions of other young people in their schools and wider friendship groups. The underpinning participatory design enabled me to work alongside young people to analyze and understand their unique perspectives of bullying in more detail. The research teams were therefore able to construct meaning together, based not entirely on our own assumptions and ideologies, but including the viewpoint of the wider research participant group ( Thomson and Gunter, 2008 ). Together, through the process of co-constructing bullying knowledge, we were able to build on what is already known in this field and contribute to the view that bullying is socially constructed through the experiences of young people and the groups they occupy ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

With regards to understanding what bullying is, the findings from these studies corroborate those of the wider literature from both paradigms of inquiry (for example Naylor et al., 2001 ; Canty et al., 2016 ); that being the discrepancies in definitions between adults and young people and also between young people themselves. Yet, findings here suggest that young people’s bullying definitions are contextually and relationally contingent. With the exception of physical bullying, young people did not differentiate between direct or indirect behaviors, instead they tended to agree that other contextual and relational factors played a role in deciding if particular behaviors were bullying (or not). The participatory research design enabled reflection and further investigation of the ideas that were particularly important to young people such as repetition and intentionality. Repetition was generally seen as being indicative of bullying being “serious,” and therefore more likely to be reported, and without repetition, a level of normality was perceived. This finding contradicts some work on bullying definitions, Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) for example found that regardless of the role played by young people in a bullying episode (victim, aggressor or witness), the criteria of ‘repetition’ was not important in how they defined bullying.

Relational factors underpinning young people’s perception of bullying and indeed it’s “seriousness” were further reflected in their willingness or otherwise to report it. Fear of disrupting the status quo of the wider friendship group, potentially leading to their own exclusion from the group, was raised as a concern by young people. Some were concerned their friends would not support them if they reported bullying, while others feared further retaliation as a result. Friendship groups have been identified as a source of support for those who have experienced bullying and as a protective factor against further bullying ( Allen, 2014 ). Although participants did not suggest their friendship groups are unsupportive it is possible that group dynamics underscore seeking (or not) support for bullying. Other literature has described such practices as evidence of a power imbalance ( Olweus, 1995 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ) but young people in these studies did not describe these unequal relationships in this way and instead focused on the outcomes and impacts of bullying. Indeed Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) also found that young people in their quantitative study did not consider “power imbalance” in their understanding of bullying and were more likely to consider intention. This paper, however, underscores the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Without such nuances, some behaviors may be overlooked as bullying, whereas other more obvious behaviors draw further attention. This paper also shows that contextual issues such as support structures can shift how young people see bullying. Contextual factors were evident across the four studies through the recognition of bullying being enabled or disabled by institutional factors, including a school’s ability to respond appropriately to bullying concerns. Young people suggested that schools could be influenced by bullies, perceiving them as non-threatening and consequently not dealing appropriately with the situation. Indeed some young people reported that their schools placed the onus on them as victims to change, consequently placing the “blame” on victims instead. These findings raise questions about who young people feel able to confide in about bullying as well as issues around training and teacher preparedness to deal with bullying in schools. Evidenced in these four studies, is that young people feel somewhat disconnected from adults when they have bullying concerns. Those who did report bullying, identified particular individuals they trusted and knew would support them. Novick and Isaacs (2010) identified teachers who young people felt comfortable in approaching to report bullying and described them as “most active, engaged and responsive.” (p. 291). The bullying literature suggests that as young people get older they are more likely to confide in friends than adults ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, findings from this paper indicate that although fewer young people reported bullying, those who did confided in an adult. Young people have identified that a variety of supports are required to tackle bullying and that adults need to listen and work with them so nuanced bullying behaviors are not recognized as “normal” behaviors. Within the data presented in this paper, “banter” was portrayed as “normal” behavior. Young people did not specify what behaviors they regarded as “banter,” but suggested that when banter is repeated and intentional the lines are blurred about what is bullying and what is banter.

Exploring bullying nuances in this paper, was enhanced by the involvement of young people in the research process who had a unique “insider” perspective about what it is like to be a young person now and how bullying is currently affecting young people. In studies one and four, young people were “active respondents” ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ) and provided adults with their own unique perspectives on bullying. It could be argued that study one did not involve the participation of young people. However, this study informed the basis of the subsequent studies due to the discrepancies noted in the literature about how bullying is understood between adults and young people, as well as the lack of young people’s voice and opportunity to participate in the reviewed research. Accordingly, young people’s data as “active respondents” informed adult understanding and led to future work involving more active research engagement from other young people. Participation in study four provided an opportunity for young people to contribute to future participatory research based on lived experiences as well as informing policy makers of the effects bullying has on the lives of young people ( O’Brien, 2017 ). In studies two and three, young people were involved further along Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum as “co-researchers” and “students as researchers” with these roles shifting and moving dependent on the context of the project at the time ( O’Brien et al., 2018a ). These young researchers brought unique knowledge to the projects ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ) that could not be accessed elsewhere. Perspectives offered by the young researchers supported adults in understanding more about traditional and cyber-bullying from their perspectives. Furthermore, this knowledge can be added to other, quantitative studies to further understand why bullying happens alongside bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes.

Findings from the four studies offer an alternative perspective to how bullying is understood by young people. Complexities in defining bullying have been further uncovered as understanding is informed by individual factors, as well as wider social and relational contexts ( Horton, 2011 ; Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). This has implications for the type of support young people require. This paper highlights how definitions of bullying shift in response to relational and contextual aspects deemed important to young people. Because of this, further nuances were uncovered through the research process itself as the respective studies showed discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups.

These understandings can act as a starting point for young people and adults to collaborate in research which seeks to understand bullying and the context to which it occurs. Furthermore, such collaborations enable adults to theorize and understand the complexities associated with bullying from the perspective of those at the center. There is a need for additional participatory research projects involving such collaborations where adults and young people can learn from each other as well as combining findings from different methodologies to enable a more comprehensive picture of the issues for young people to emerge. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of bullying among and between young people, specifically in relation to the contextual and relational factors underscoring perceptions of bullying.

Data Availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was granted for all four studies from the Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care at the Anglia Ruskin University. The research was conducted on the premise of Gillick competency meaning that young people (in these studies over the age of 12 years) could consent for themselves to participate. Parents/carers were aware the study was happening and received information sheets explaining the process.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

These four studies were conducted at the Anglia Ruskin University. Study one was part of a wider masters degree funded by the Anglia Ruskin University, Study two was funded by a group of young people convened by the National Children’s Bureau with funding from the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom). Study three was a wider Doctoral study funded by the Anglia Ruskin University and Study four was also funded by the Anglia Ruskin University.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Grace Spencer, Ruskin Fellow at the Anglia Ruskin University for providing the critical read of this manuscript and offering constructive feedback. I would also like to thank the two independent reviewers for their feedback on the drafts of this manuscript.

• ^ These findings focus on perceptions and data from the young people in the four studies. For a full discussion on adult perceptions please refer to the individual studies.

Alderson, P. (2007). Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Soc. Sci. Med. 65, 2272–2283. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.005

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Allen, M. (2014). Local Action on Health Inequalities: Building Children and Young People’s Resilience in Schools , London: Public Health England.

Google Scholar

Beresford, P. (2006). Making the connections with direct experience: from the western front to user-controlled research. Educ. Action Res. 14, 161–170.

Black, S., Weinles, D., and Washington, E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 8, 138–147. doi: 10.1177/1541204009349401

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bland, D., and Atweh, B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students’ voices in PAR. Educ. Action Res. 15, 337–349. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514259

Boulton, M. J., and Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school Pupils’ involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 17, 331–345. doi: 10.1177/0143034396174003

Bradbury-Jones, C., Isham, L., and Taylor, J. (2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 215, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038

Bragg, S., and Fielding, M. (2005). “It’s an equal thing. It’s about achieving together: student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality,” in Improving Schools Through Collaborative Enquiry , eds H. Street, and J. Temperley, (London: Continuum), 105–135.

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101.

Canty, J., Stubbe, M., Steers, D., and Collings, S. (2016). The trouble with bullying–deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into Children’s use of social media. Child. Soc. 30, 48–58. doi: 10.1111/chso.12103

Coyne, I. (2010). Research with children and young people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Child. Soc. 24, 227–237.

Cuadrado-Gordillo, I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 27, 1889–1910. doi: 10.1177/0886260511431436

Davey, C. (2011). Evaluation of the PEAR Project. London: National Children’s Bureau.

deLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents Don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. J. Sch. Violence 11, 288–305. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.705931

Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educ. Res. 60, 157–170. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263

Espelage, D. L. (2018). Understanding the complexity of school bully involvement. Chautauqua J. 2:20.

Forsberg, C., Wood, L., Smith, J., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Jungert, T., et al. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 33, 127–142. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001

Fox, R. (2013). Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J. Youth Stud. 16, 986–999. doi: 10.1080/13676261.2013.815698

Griffin, R. S., and Gross, A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggr. Violent Behav. 9, 379–400. doi: 10.1016/s1359-1789(03)00033-8

Guerin, S., and Hennessy, E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 17, 249–261. doi: 10.1007/bf03173535

Horton, P. (2011). School bullying and social and moral orders. Child. Soc. 25, 268–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00377.x

Huang, F. L., and Cornell, D. G. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychol. Assess. 27:1484. doi: 10.1037/pas0000149

James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. Am. Anthropol. 109, 261–272. doi: 10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261

Jones, A. (2004). “Involving children and yong people as researchers,” in Doing Research with Children and Young People , eds S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, and C. Robinson, (London: Sage Publications), 113–130.

Kellett, M. (2010). Small shoes, Big Steps! Empowering children as active researchers. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 46, 195–203. doi: 10.1007/s10464-010-9324-y

La Fontaine, J. (1991). Bullying: The Child’s View – an Analysis of Telephone Calls to ChildLIne about Bullying. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Lambert, V., and Glacken, M. (2011). Engaging with children in research: theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs. Ethics 18, 781–801. doi: 10.1177/0969733011401122

Lee, C. (2006). Exploring teachers’ definitions of bullying. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 11, 61–75. doi: 10.1080/13632750500393342

Maunder, R. E., and Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggr. Violent Behav. 38, 13–20. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010

Maunder, R. E., Harrop, A., and Tattersall, A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educ. Res. 52, 263–282. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2010.504062

Moore, S., and Maclean, R. (2012). Victimization, friendship and resilience: crossing the land in-between. Pastor. Care Educ. 30, 147–163. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.679956

Naylor, P., Cowie, H., and del Rey, R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Rev. 6, 114–120. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x

Novick, R. M., and Isaacs, J. (2010). Telling is compelling: the impact of students reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educ. Psychol. 30, 283–296. doi: 10.1080/01443410903573123

O’Brien, N. (2009). Secondary school teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying in the UK: a systematic review. Evid. Policy 5, 399–426.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

O’Brien, N. (2014). “I Didn’t Want to be Known as a Snitch”: Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private day and Boarding School. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition. Suffolk: University Campus Suffolk, 86–96.

O’Brien, N. (2016). To ‘Snitch’ or Not to ‘Snitch’? Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private Day and Boarding School. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700970/ (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N. (2017). An Exploratory Study of Bullied Young People’s Self-Exclusion from School. Evidence: Presented at Meetings of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying 2011-2016. Project Report. All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/702024 (accessed September 20, 2018).

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2007). So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research project with children and young people. Educ. Action Res. J. 15, 385–402. doi: 10.1080/09650790701514382

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2010). The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People’s Mental Health. Project Report. Chelmsford: Anglia Ruskin University.

O’Brien, N., and Moules, T. (2013). Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: findings from a national cyberbullying project. Pastor. Care Educ. 31, 53–65. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2012.747553

O’Brien, N., Moules, T., and Munn-Giddings, C. (2018a). “Negotiating the research space between young people and adults in a PAR study exploring school bullying,” in Reciprocal Relationships and Well-Being: Implications for Social Work and Social Policy , eds M. Torronen, C. Munn-Giddings, and L. Tarkiainen, (Oxon: Routledge), 160–175. doi: 10.4324/9781315628363-11

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018b). The repercussions of reporting bullying: some experiences of students at an independent secondary school. Pastor. Care Educ. 36, 29–43. doi: 10.1080/02643944.2017.1422004

O’Brien, N., Munn-Giddings, C., and Moules, T. (2018c). The Ethics of Involving Young People Directly in the Research Process. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition , 115–128. Available at: www.uos.ac.uk/content/centre-for-study-children-childhood (accessed May 2018).

Oliver, C., and Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’. Oxford Rev. Educ. 33, 71–86. doi: 10.1080/03054980601094594

Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: facts and intervention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 196–200. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640

Ozer, E. J., and Wright, D. (2012). Beyond school spirit: the effects of youth-led participatory action research in two urban high schools. J. Res. Adolesc. 22, 267–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x

Parsons, S., Abbott, C., McKnight, L., and Davies, C. (2015). High risk yet invisible: conflicting narratives on social research involving children and young people, and the role of research ethics committees. Br. Educ. Res. J. 41, 709–729. doi: 10.1002/berj.3160

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., and Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse 18, 3–16. doi: 10.1177/1524838015588502

Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Eur. Soc. Res. Council Methods Program. doi: 10.13140/2.1.1018.4643

Schott, R. M., and Sondergaard, D. M. (2014). “Introduction: new approaches to school bullying,” in School Bullying: New Theories in Context , eds R. M. Schott, and D. M. Sondergaard, (Massachusetts, MA: Cambridge University Press), 1–17.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Murray-Harvey, R., and Pereira, B. (2011). School bullying by one or more ways: does it matter and how do students cope? Sch. Psychol. Int. 32, 288–311. doi: 10.1177/0143034311402308

Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., and Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Dev. 73, 1119–1133. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00461

Spears, B., Taddeo, C., Collin, P., Swist, T., Razzell, M., Borbone, V., et al. (2016). Safe and Well Online: Learnings from Four Social Marketing Campaigns for Youth Wellbeing. Available at: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36405/datastream/PDF/view (accessed July 1, 2019).

Stoudt, B. G. (2009). The role of language & discourse in the investigation of privilege: using participatory action research to discuss theory. Dev. Methodol. Interrupt. Power Urban Rev. 41, 7–28.

Thomson, P., and Gunter, H. (2008). Researching Bullying with students: a lens on everyday life in an ‘innovative school’. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 12, 185–200. doi: 10.1080/13603110600855713

Tisdall, E. K. M., and Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Child. Geogr. 10, 249–264. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2012.693376

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Available at: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PRESS2009 10web.pdf (accessed January 19, 2014).

Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., et al. (2008). Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32, 486–495. doi: 10.1177/0165025408095553

Keywords : bullying, young people, participatory research, social constructionism, young people as researchers, collaboration, bullying supports

Citation: O’Brien N (2019) Understanding Alternative Bullying Perspectives Through Research Engagement With Young People. Front. Psychol. 10:1984. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01984

Received: 28 February 2019; Accepted: 13 August 2019; Published: 28 August 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 O’Brien. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Niamh O’Brien, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Bullying - Science topic

• asked a question related to Bullying
• 31 Jul 2024

• 0 Recommendations

• 11 Jul 2024

• 18 Jun 2024

• Scherm­afbeelding 2024-06-18 om 12.22. 04.png 66.8 kB
• Scherm­afbeelding 2024-06-18 om 12.22. 42.png 141 kB

• 30 Jun 2024

• 19 Jun 2024
• 20 Jun 2024
• 18 Recommendations

• 16 Jun 2024

• 21 Recommendations

• 10 May 2024
• 5 Recommendations

• 17 Apr 2024

• 18 Apr 2024

• 17 Mar 2024

• 11 Mar 2024

• 16 Mar 2024
• 4 Recommendations

• 6 Recommendations

• Statistical Methods for Comparative Studies - 1980 - Anderson - Frontmatt er.pdf 531 kB

• 2 Recommendations

• 17 Dec 2023

• 22 Dec 2023

• 19 Jun 2023

• 12 Oct 2023

• 12 Sept 2023

• 19 Sept 2023

• 13 Aug 2023

• 16 Aug 2023

• 10 Aug 2023
• 3 Recommendations

• 31 Jul 2023
• Hostile Work Environment: Persistent harassment, discrimination, or unfair treatment based on gender, race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics can create a hostile work environment that pushes academics to resign.
• Lack of Support: Inadequate support from the institution or colleagues, such as limited resources, lack of mentorship, or insufficient opportunities for professional development, can lead academics to feel frustrated and unsupported.
• Excessive Workload: Overburdening academics with heavy teaching loads, administrative tasks, and research responsibilities without adequate compensation or time can lead to burnout and the decision to leave.
• Unclear Expectations or Inconsistent Policies: If the institution has ambiguous or ever-changing expectations, it can create a stressful environment for academics who struggle to meet unclear standards.
• Toxic Leadership: Poor leadership at the institutional level, including micromanagement, favoritism, or lack of transparency, can create a negative work environment and drive academics to seek employment elsewhere.
• Bullying or Professional Intimidation: Instances of bullying or intimidation from colleagues or superiors can create an untenable situation for academics, leading to their decision to resign.
• Salary and Benefits Issues: If academics feel their compensation or benefits are inadequate compared to their workload or industry standards, it may contribute to their decision to leave.
• Restrictive Research Environment: Institutions that impose significant constraints on research topics or methodologies may discourage academics seeking intellectual freedom.

• 10 Jul 2023

• 14 Jun 2023
• Redesigning human behaviour research to solve wicked problems _ A case study into why bullying by toxic leaders remains the foundation of all social problems and a need for research chang e..pdf 236 kB

• 25 Recommendations

• 10 Mar 2023

• 16 Mar 2023
• 25 Apr 2023

• 27 Feb 2023

• 26 Sept 2022

• 10 Oct 2022

• 29 Mar 2022

• 10 Mar 2022

• 21 Feb 2022

• 26 Feb 2022

• 18 Feb 2022

• 210 Recommendations

• 15 Jan 2022
• 15 Feb 2022
• 30 Recommendations

• 10 Recommendations

• 23 May 2021

• 11 Jan 2022
• 64 Recommendations

• 17 Nov 2021

• 23 Dec 2021

• 20 Nov 2021

• 21 Nov 2021

• 10 Oct 2021

• 13 Oct 2021
• 81 Recommendations

• 20 Oct 2018

• 20 Sept 2021
• 60 Recommendations

• 11 Sept 2021
• 17 Sept 2021

• 17 Jul 2021
• 18 Jul 2021

• 13 Jul 2021

• 21 Jun 2021

• 22 Jun 2021
• Especial Experiencia ( 2).pdf 689 kB

• 15 Feb 2019

• 11 Jun 2021

• 23 Mar 2021

• 15 Recommendations

• 14 Feb 2021

• 16 Feb 2021

• 16 Jul 2020

• 19 Jan 2017

• 11 Feb 2021

• 26 Jan 2021
• 27 Jan 2021
• 9 Recommendations

• 29 Dec 2020
• Olweus儿童欺负问卷中文版的修订_张 文新.pdf 188 kB

• 18 Jan 2021

• 12 Recommendations

• 28 Nov 2020

• 22 Nov 2020

• 27 Nov 2020

• 15 Apr 2020

• 19 Oct 2020

• 17 Jul 2020

• 11 Jul 2020

• 23 May 2020

• 10 Apr 2020

• 18 Mar 2020

• 2017-2 .pdf 1.08 MB

• d41586-018-07532-5_162881 40.jpg 46.2 kB

• 20 Oct 2019

• 25 Dec 2019

• 28 Oct 2019

• 27 Oct 2019

• 25 Oct 2019
• 26 Oct 2019

• 11 Oct 2019

• 12 Jul 2019

• 1 Recommendation
• 15 Jul 2019

• 25 Sept 2019
• 22 Sept 2019

• 13 Aug 2019

• 14 Aug 2019
• 20 Recommendations
• 17 Jul 2019

• 20 Jul 2019

• 15 May 2019

• 14 Jun 2019

• 23 May 2019

• 28 May 2019

• 22 May 2019

• 20 May 2019

• 23 Apr 2019
• Company core values do not serve as the basis for how the organization functions.
• Employee suggestions are discarded. People are afraid to give honest feedback.
• Micromanaging -Little to no autonomy is given to employees in performing their jobs.
• Blaming and punishment from management is the norm.
• Excessive absenteeism, illness and high employee turn over.
• Overworking is a badge of honor and is expected.
• Little or strained interaction between employees and management.
• Gossiping and/or social cliques.
• Favoritism and office politics.
• Aggressive or bullying behavior
• Article available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/toxic-work-environments-make-best-employees-quit-brigette-hyacinth

• 25 Apr 2019

• 17 Jan 2019
• 18 Mar 2019

• 20 Jan 2019

• 24 Jan 2019

• 18 Jan 2019

• 22 Jan 2019

• 12 Jan 2019

• 14 Jan 2019

• 13 Jan 2019

• 25 Nov 2018

• 27 Nov 2018

• 29 Oct 2018
• 30 Oct 2018

• 16 Mar 2017

• 29 Sept 2018

• 22 Sept 2018

• 23 Sept 2018

• 7 Sept 2018
• 12 Sept 2018

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Thesis Action Plan New
• Academic Project Planner

Literature Navigator

Thesis dialogue blueprint, writing wizard's template, research proposal compass.

• Why students love us
• Rebels Blog
• Why we are different
• All Products
• Coming Soon

Addressing Bullying: Crafting the Perfect Research Question

In the realm of academic research, addressing the issue of bullying requires a precise and thoughtful approach, especially when formulating the central research question. This article delves into the nuances of crafting an effective research question that not only highlights the specific aspects of bullying but also aligns with broader research objectives.

Key Takeaways

• Understand the historical and current trends in bullying to ground your research in relevant contexts.
• A strong research question should be clear, focused, and researchable within the resources available.
• Incorporate theoretical frameworks to add depth and structure to your research question.
• Choose the appropriate methodology, whether qualitative or quantitative, to best address the research question.
• A well-formulated research question can significantly influence the credibility and impact of your research.

Understanding the Scope of Bullying in Research

Defining bullying in academic studies.

To effectively address bullying, it's crucial to establish a clear and consistent definition within academic studies. This involves distinguishing bullying from general aggression and identifying specific characteristics such as repetition, power imbalance, and intent to harm. Understanding these nuances allows researchers to measure and analyze bullying more accurately, ensuring that interventions are appropriately targeted.

Historical Context and Evolution of Bullying Research

The study of bullying has evolved significantly over the decades. Initially focused on physical bullying, research has expanded to include cyberbullying and psychological forms. This evolution reflects broader societal changes and the increasing recognition of the complex nature of bullying. Historical analysis helps pinpoint shifts in patterns and the effectiveness of past interventions, which can inform current strategies.

Current Trends in Bullying Research

Current research trends emphasize the importance of qualitative methods to grasp the nuanced experiences of individuals affected by bullying. There is a growing focus on the roles of technology and social media , as these platforms become prevalent in young people's lives. Researchers are also exploring the impact of bullying across different cultures and social groups, aiming to develop more inclusive and effective prevention and intervention strategies.

Formulating the Research Question on Bullying

Criteria for a strong research question.

When you embark on your research journey, the clarity and precision of your research question are paramount. A well-crafted question should be specific, measurable, and directly aligned with your research objectives. It should also be feasible and relevant to the current academic discourse on bullying.

Aligning Your Question with Research Goals

To ensure your research question effectively guides your study , it must resonate with both your academic goals and the broader implications of bullying. This alignment not only enhances the coherence of your research but also ensures that your findings will contribute meaningfully to the field.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Question Formation

Be vigilant against overly broad or vague questions. A focused and empirical question not only streamlines your research process but also aids in the collection of precise data. Remember, the specificity of your question can greatly influence the reliability of your findings and the overall success of your research.

The Role of Theory in Crafting Research Questions on Bullying

Theoretical frameworks relevant to bullying.

Understanding the theoretical underpinnings of bullying is crucial for developing effective research questions. Theories such as social learning theory, which posits that behaviors are learned through observing others, can provide a lens through which to view the mechanisms of bullying. Similarly, ecological systems theory, which emphasizes the multiple layers of influence on an individual, can help you consider the broader social and environmental factors that contribute to bullying.

Integrating Theory with Empirical Inquiry

To craft a research question that is both insightful and empirically verifiable, you must integrate theory with empirical data. This involves identifying gaps in the current literature and considering how theoretical perspectives can illuminate these areas. For example, using attachment theory , you might explore how early relationships affect bullying behavior in adolescence. This approach ensures that your research question is grounded in a solid theoretical framework while also being directly linked to observable phenomena.

Theory-Driven Research Question Examples

Here are a few examples of how theories can drive your research questions:

• How does the application of social learning theory explain the persistence of bullying behaviors in school settings?
• In what ways can ecological systems theory be used to explore the impact of community environments on bullying among teenagers?
• Utilizing attachment theory, what relationship exists between early parental bonding and later aggressive behaviors among peers?

These examples illustrate how theories not only guide the formulation of your research questions but also enhance the depth and relevance of your study.

Methodological Considerations for Bullying Research

Choosing the right research design.

When you embark on bullying research, selecting the appropriate research design is crucial. Your choice should align with the specific objectives of your study and the nature of the data you aim to collect. Whether it's experimental, correlational, or observational, each design offers different insights and comes with its own set of limitations.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Approaches

Deciding between quantitative and qualitative approaches can significantly impact the depth and type of data you gather. Quantitative methods often involve large-scale surveys and statistical analysis, providing a broad overview. In contrast, qualitative methods delve deeper into individual experiences and perceptions, which can be particularly insightful for understanding the nuances of bullying behavior.

Ethical Considerations in Bullying Studies

Ethical considerations are paramount in bullying research. You must ensure informed consent , respect for privacy, and the minimization of potential harm to participants. These ethical standards are not just regulatory requirements but are crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of your research.

Impact of a Well-Formulated Research Question

Influencing research outcomes.

A well-formulated research question can significantly influence the outcomes of your study. By being specific and focused, it ensures that the data collected is directly relevant to the question at hand, thereby increasing the validity of your findings. This alignment between the research question and the data collected is crucial for drawing meaningful conclusions that can impact the field of bullying studies.

Guiding Data Collection and Analysis

The precision of your research question guides the entire data collection and analysis process. A clear and well-defined question helps in designing a methodological approach that is both effective and efficient. It acts as a roadmap, ensuring that every step of your research is aligned with the ultimate goal of answering the research question . This systematic approach minimizes the risk of collecting extraneous data that does not contribute to your study's objectives.

Enhancing Research Credibility and Relevance

The credibility and relevance of your research are heavily dependent on how well the research question is formulated. A strong, clear question not only facilitates a robust research design but also enhances the persuasiveness of your study to stakeholders and the academic community. A well-thought-out question demonstrates a deep understanding of the topic and the existing gaps in the literature, which can lead to more targeted and impactful research.

Case Studies: Effective Research Questions in Bullying Studies

Analysis of successful bullying research.

In your quest to understand what makes a research question successful in bullying studies, consider the depth and specificity required. Successful questions often pinpoint particular behaviors or outcomes , allowing for detailed analysis and actionable conclusions. For instance, questions that focus on the impact of specific anti-bullying programs on student behavior in diverse educational settings have proven to be particularly insightful.

Lessons Learned from Past Studies

Learning from past research is crucial. You should focus on studies that have effectively isolated variables and demonstrated clear cause-and-effect relationships. This approach not only enhances the reliability of your research but also provides a robust framework for your study. Key lessons include the importance of a well-defined population and the use of longitudinal data to track changes over time.

Adapting Research Questions in Changing Contexts

As societal norms and technological landscapes evolve, so too must the questions we ask. Adapting your research questions to include new forms of bullying, such as cyberbullying, and considering the broader social media context, can provide fresh insights and more relevant results. This adaptation is essential for keeping your research aligned with current trends and ensuring its future relevance.

Advancing Bullying Research: Future Directions

Emerging themes in bullying research.

As you delve into the future of bullying research, it's crucial to identify and explore emerging themes that could shape the field. Antibullying interventions have shown promise across diverse educational settings, highlighting the need for innovative strategies that are inclusive of various cultural and social backgrounds.

Interdisciplinary Approaches

The complexity of bullying phenomena calls for an interdisciplinary approach, combining insights from psychology, sociology, education, and even technology. This collaborative perspective can lead to more comprehensive solutions and a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to bullying.

Incorporating Technology and New Media

The digital age has transformed the landscape of bullying, with cyberbullying becoming a significant concern. Utilizing technology and new media can help researchers gather real-time data and develop more effective anti-bullying programs. This approach not only addresses current trends but also equips stakeholders with tools to dynamically respond to bullying as it evolves.

Resources and Tools for Developing Research Questions on Bullying

Academic databases and journals.

To effectively develop your research question on bullying, it is crucial to access a wide range of academic literature. Utilize online databases such as JSTOR, PubMed, and Google Scholar to find peer-reviewed articles, case studies, and reviews. These resources are invaluable for understanding the breadth of research conducted on bullying and for identifying gaps that your study could fill.

Workshops and Seminars

Engaging in workshops and seminars can provide you with the necessary skills and insights to craft a well-rounded research question. These events often feature experts in the field of bullying research who offer guidance and share best practices. Look for events hosted by academic institutions or professional organizations dedicated to psychology and educational research.

Online Platforms and Software Tools

Leveraging online platforms and software tools can greatly enhance your research efficiency. Tools like the Literature Navigator and Research Proposal Compass are designed to help you organize your findings and structure your research proposal effectively. These tools can be particularly helpful in managing and synthesizing large volumes of information, making it easier to formulate a comprehensive and focused research question.

Exploring the complexities of bullying requires robust resources and tools to develop effective research questions. At Research Rebels, we provide innovative strategies and guides that have been tested globally to ensure you're equipped for academic success. Dive into our comprehensive resources and take the first step towards mastering your research on bullying. Visit our website to learn more and claim your special offer today !

In conclusion, crafting the perfect research question for addressing bullying is a critical step in the academic exploration of this pervasive issue. A well-formulated question not only guides the research direction but also ensures that the study is focused, relevant, and capable of contributing to the existing body of knowledge. By integrating insights from various academic resources and aligning with empirical evidence, researchers can construct questions that are both insightful and impactful. This approach not only aids in understanding the nuances of bullying but also in developing effective strategies to combat it, thereby fostering safer educational environments for all students.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the importance of defining bullying in academic research.

Defining bullying accurately in academic research is crucial to ensure consistency and clarity across studies, which aids in identifying effective interventions and understanding the full scope of the issue.

How can historical context help in researching bullying?

Understanding the historical context of bullying helps researchers identify how perceptions and definitions have evolved, which can influence current research approaches and policy development.

What are some current trends in bullying research?

Current trends include focusing on cyberbullying, the psychological impacts of bullying, preventive education programs, and the role of social media in bullying dynamics.

What criteria make a research question strong in bullying studies?

A strong research question in bullying studies should be clear, focused, and researchable, with a scope that allows for empirical testing and contributes new insights to the field.

Why is theoretical framework important in formulating research questions on bullying?

Theoretical frameworks guide the research by providing a structured approach to understanding bullying, predicting outcomes, and framing interpretations, which enhances the study's academic rigor.

How do ethical considerations impact bullying research?

Ethical considerations in bullying research ensure the protection of participants, especially minors, from harm, respect for privacy, and the integrity of the research process.

Cómo Empezar una Tesis: Una Guía Completa para Principiantes

How to Start a Thesis: A Comprehensive Guide for Beginners

थीसिस कैसे शुरू करें: शुरुआती लोगों के लिए एक व्यापक मार्गदर्शिका

كيفية بدء رسالة: دليل شامل للمبتدئين

如何开始写论文：初学者的综合指南

Thesis Revision Made Simple: Techniques for Perfecting Your Academic Work

Integrating Calm into Your Study Routine: The Power of Mindfulness in Education

How to Determine the Perfect Research Proposal Length

How Do I Start Writing My Thesis: A Step-by-Step Guide

From Idea to Proposal: 6 Steps to Efficiently Plan Your Research Project in 2024

Thesis Action Plan

• Blog Articles
• Affiliate Program
• Terms and Conditions
• Payment and Shipping Terms
• Privacy Policy
• Return Policy

© 2024 Research Rebels, All rights reserved.

Your cart is currently empty.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Exploring school bullying: designing the research question with young co-researchers.

1. Introduction

1.1. participatory action research.

“is a collaborative approach in which those typically ‘studied’ are involved as decision makers and co-researchers in some or all stages of the research”.

1.2. Understanding and Recognising Bullying

School bullying is in-person and online behaviour between students within a social network that causes physical, emotional or social harm to targeted students. It is characterized by an imbalance of power that is enabled or inhibited by the social and institutional norms and context of schools and the education system. School bullying implies an absence of effective responses and care towards the target by peers and adults.

1.3. The Present Study

2. the research process, 2.1. the exploratory phase.

“There is a strong sense of the school being more than simply a place to receive academic education. There appears to be a degree of pride among students as part of being in the school” . (Staff Participant SP, Female)

“We have an LGBTQ+ committee and an anti-racism group” , (Student Participant (Stu, Female))

“a multi-cultural day, anti-racism club etc.” , (Stu, Female)

“Have students from all over the world” . (Stu, Female)

“The staff are oblivious and just let the one person get away with it Every Single Time. It’s like he gets a slap on the wrist and gets on with life. I don’t want a big scene about it I just want that person to stop it. He sexualises 14-year-old girls and it’s not okay.” . (Stu, Female)

“It’s the society that we’re living in right now in that people are just acting out more and people are like not really caring what’s going on. And not really caring about other people” . (Stu, Male)

“…nested within one another, co-implicating and cohabitating. Yet each retains its own distinct identity, organising logic and emerging patterns”.

“Stitches for snitches is still a popular phrase. We are finding it difficult to become a telling school” . (SP, Female)

“You would get slagged by students if they become aware” . (Stu, Female)

“Most of the girls I think just kind of sit and kind of be quiet.”. (Stu, Female)

“And like if they’re asked a question, they answer.”. (Stu, Female)

“Yeah, but you don’t really like… Not that you don’t engage in the class but it’s mostly like, if a girl tries to be funny, it’s not funny. If a boy is funny, it is funny.”. (Stu, Female)

“There’s a huge culture of not being a rat around here…. I mean, it goes way back you know.”. (SP, Female)

2.2. Recruiting the Co-Researchers and Steering Group

2.3. deciding the research question.

“In recent years a great deal has been done to address this issue and will be continued to do so, which is very positive”. (SP, Male)

“the LGBTQ+ group are working very hard to encourage inclusion”. (Co-researcher CR, female)

“I think we should focus on Misogyny or/and Sexism in the school because these issues are very prevalent across the entire school. There are sexism issues concerning both the teachers in the school and the students and I believe that they need to be addressed” (CR, Female)

“…dislike of, contempt for, or prejudice against women”.

“I’ve experienced some gender bullying in the school…. It’s more sort of like how you sort of dress and how you look…. Sometimes they can say very nasty sort of names. Or like they just call you stuff, or maybe talk about you”. (CR, Female)

“At yesterday’s meeting, a few of you shared some personal viewpoints and stories so just a reminder of the importance of confidentiality in our sessions (ground rules [ Figure 1 ] that we set at our first meeting) and not sharing other people’s stories outside of our discussions”. (Email 1 March 2022)

“…prejudice or discrimination based on one’s sex or gender. Sexism can affect anyone, but it primarily affects women and girls. It has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles and may include the belief that one’s sex or gender is intrinsically superior to another”. ( European Institute for Gender Equality 2021 )

“And I don’t know, I think that it might be hard for especially some of the boys in our year to decide if it’s like stop as in a joking stop, or stop as in like just stop”. (CR, Female)

“I don’t play rugby anymore but the boy’s rugby team would get new jerseys every year and the girls just don’t ever get rugby jerseys. But then for hockey, it’s similar but like not as bad, not as noticeable as the rugby I think between like boy’s hockey and girl’s hockey”. (CR, Male)

“…. if a school wants to prevent bullying to certain people, vulnerable people. If they want to remove misogynist sayings about women, or even males, they have to push their protocol they have to do every single step. What…is actually getting done? How is it being done? What are the repercussions of this? How are we going to help the bully? How are we going to help the victim?”. (CR, Male)

3. Discussion

• Acknowledging the complexities of power dynamics.
• Understanding time as duration and non-linear.

3.1. Acknowledging the Complexities of Power Dynamics

“…generates different data from adult-to-child enquiry because children observe with different eyes, ask different questions and communicate in fundamentally different ways”.

3.2. Understanding Time as Duration and Non-Linear in the PAR Process 779

4. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Åkerström, Jeanette, and Elinor Brunnberg. 2012. Young people as partners in research: Experiences from an interactive research circle with adolescent girls. Qualitative Research 13: 528–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Anyon, Yolanda, Bender H. Kennedy, and Jonah Dechants. 2018. A systematic review of Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth osutcomes, and Future Directions. Health Education & Behavior 45: 865–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Attawell, Kathy. 2019. Behind the Numbers: Ending School Violence and Bullying . Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergström, Jan, Gerhard Andersson, Brjánn Ljótsson, Christian Rück, Sergej Andréewitch, Andreas Karlsson, Per Carlbring, Erik Andersson, and Nils Lindefors. 2010. Internet-versus group-administered cognitive behaviour therapy for panic disorder in a psychiatric setting: A randomised trial. BMC Psychiatry 10: 54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bradbury-Jones, Caroline, and Julie Taylor. 2015. Engaging with children as co-researchers: Challenges, counter-challenges and solutions. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 18: 161–73. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brady, Louca-Mai, Lorna Templeton, Paul Toner, Judith Watson, David Evans, Barry Percy-Smith, and Alex Copello. 2018. Involving young people in drug and alcohol research. Drugs and Alcohol Today 18: 28–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brank, Eve M., Jennifer L. Woolard, Veda E. Brown, Mark Fondacaro, Jennifer L. Luescher, Ramona G. Chinn, and Scott A. Miller. 2007. Will they tell? Weapons reporting by middle-school youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5: 125–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be (com) ing a knowing researcher. International Journal of Transgender Health 24: 1–6. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brydon-Miller, Mary, Michael Kral, and Alfredo Ortiz Aragón. 2020. Participatory Action Research: International Perspectives and Practices. International Review of Qualitative Research 13: 103–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bryman, Alan. 2004. Social Research Methods , 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, p. 592. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cahill, Caitlin. 2007a. Doing research with young people: Participatory research and the rituals of collective work. Children’s Geographies 5: 297–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cahill, Caitlin. 2007b. The personal is political: Developing new subjectivities through Participatory Action Research. Gender, Place & Culture 14: 267–92. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Camino, Linda. 2005. Pitfalls and promising practices of youth–adult partnerships: An evaluator’s reflections. Journal of Community Psychology 33: 75–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chabot, Cathy, Jean A. Shoveller, Grace Spencer, and Joy L. Johnson. 2012. Ethical and Epistemological Insights: A Case Study of Participatory Action Research with Young People. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 7: 20–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Colebrook, Claire. 2002. Understanding Deleuze . Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuadrado-Gordillo, Isabel. 2012. Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: Do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27: 1889–910. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dadswell, Anna, and Niamh O’Brien. 2021. Working with Adolescents to Understand Bullying and Self-Exclusion from School. International Journal of Developmental Sciences 14: 63–72. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus . Mineapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ditch the Label. 2020. The Annual Bullying Survey 2020. Available online: https://www.ditchthelabel.org/research-papers/the-annual-bullying-survey-2020/ (accessed on 16 February 2023).
• Eriksen, Tine L. M., Helena S. Nielsen, and Marianne Simonsen. 2018. Bullying in Elementary School. The Journal of Human Resources 49: 839–71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• European Institute for Gender Equality. 2021. What Is Sexism? Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/publications/sexism-at-work-handbook/part-1-understand/what-sexism (accessed on 30 January 2022).
• Evans, Caroline B., and Paul R. Smokowski. 2016. Theoretical explanations for bullying in school: How ecological processes propagate perpetration and victimization. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33: 365–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fenwick, Tara. 2012. Complexity science and professional learning for collaboration: A critical reconsideration of possibilities and limitations. Journal of Education and Work 25: 141–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hamada, Shoko, Hitoshi Kaneko, Masayoshi Ogura, Aya Yamawaki, Junko Maezono, Lauri Sillanmäki, and Shuji Honjo. 2018. Association between bullying behavior, perceived school safety, and self-cutting: A Japanese population-based school survey. Child and Adolescent Mental Health 23: 141–47. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hart Barnett, Juliet E., Kim W. Fisher, Natasha O’Connell, and Kimberlee Franco. 2019. Promoting upstander behavior to address bullying in schools. Middle School Journal 50: 6–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hellström, Lisa, and Adrian Lundberg. 2020. Understanding bullying from young people’s perspectives: An exploratory study. Educational Research 62: 414–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Herr, Kathryn, and Gary L. Anderson. 2005. The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hinton, Christina, and Kurt W. Fischer. 2008. Research schools: Grounding research in educational practice. Mind, Brain, and Education 2: 157–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horgan, Deirdre. 2017. Child Participatory research methods: Attempts to go ‘deeper’. Childhood 24: 245–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Horton, Paul. 2011. School Bullying and Social and Moral Orders. Children & Society 25: 268–77. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jeffrey, Jenny, and Jaimee Stuart. 2020. Do research definitions of bullying capture the experiences and understandings of young people? A qualitative investigation into the characteristics of bullying behaviour. International Journal of Bullying Prevention 2: 180–89. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kellett, Mary. 2010. Small Shoes, Big Steps! Empowering Children as Active Researchers. American Journal of Community Psychology 46: 195–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Koch, Tina, and Debbie Kralik. 2009. Participatory Action Research in Health Care . Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin, Kurt. 1946. Action Research and Minority Problems. Journal of Social Issues 2: 34–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Linstead, Stephen, and Torkild Tharem. 2007. Multiplicity, Virtuality & Organization: The Contribution of Gilles Deleuze. Organizational Studies 28: 1483–501. [ Google Scholar ]
• Livingstone, Anne M., Jacqueline Celemencki, and Melissa Calixte. 2014. Youth participatory action research and school improvement: The missing voices of black youth in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Education 37: 283–307. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lundy, Laura. 2018. In defence of tokenism? Implementing children’s right to participate in collective decision-making. Childhood 25: 340–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lushey, Clare J., and Emily R. Munro. 2015. Participatory peer research methodology: An effective method for obtaining young people’s perspectives on transitions from care to adulthood? Qualitative Social Work 14: 522–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Manchester, Helen, and Emma Pett. 2015. Teenage Kicks: Exploring cultural value from a youth perspective. Cultural Trends 24: 223–31. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mason, Jennifer. 2002. Qualitative Researching , 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayall, Berry. 2000. The Sociology of Childhood in Relation to Children’s Rights. The International Journal of Children’s Rights 8: 243–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• McNiff, Jean, and Jack Whitehead. 2011. All You Need to Know about Action Research , 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meinck, Sabine, Julian Fraillon, and Rolf Strietholt. 2022. The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Education: International Evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS) . Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merves, Marni L., Caryn R. Rodgers, Ellen J. Silver, Jamie H. Sclafane, and Laurie J. Bauman. 2015. Engaging and sustaining adolescents in Community-Based Participatory Research: Structuring a youth-friendly CBPR environment. Family & Community Health 38: 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Migliaccio, Todd, and Juliana Raskauskas. 2016. Bullying as a Social Experience: Social Factors, Prevention and Intervention . New York: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitra, Dana L. 2009. Collaborating with students: Building youth-adult partnerships in schools. American Journal of Education 115: 407–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mohan, Greta, Selina McCoy, Eamonn Carroll, Georgiana Mihut, Seán Lyons, and Ciarán Mac Domhnaill. 2020. Learning for All? Second-Level Education in Ireland During COVID-19 . Survey and Statistical Report Series (ESRI) Number 92. Dublin: ESRI. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyman, Anneli, Stina Rutberg, Margareta Lilja, and Gunilla Isaksson. 2022. The Process of using Participatory Action research when trying out an ICT solution in home based rehabilitation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 21: 16094069221084791. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, Niamh. 2016. To ‘Snitch’ or Not to ‘Snitch’? Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private Day and Boarding School. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford, UK. Available online: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700970/ (accessed on 2 February 2023).
• O’Brien, Niamh. 2021. School Factors with a Focus on Boarding Schools. In The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention . Edited by P. K. Smith and J. O’Higgins Norman. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, Niamh, and Audrey Doyle. 2023. Exploring School Bullying: Designing the Research Question with Young co-Researchers. Paper presented at the 7th World Conference on Qualitative Research, Faro, Portugal, January 25–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien, Niamh, and Tina Moules. 2007. So round the spiral again: A reflective particpatory research project with children and young people. Educational Action Research 15: 385–402. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, Niamh, and Tina Moules. 2012. Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: Findings from a national cyberbullying project. Pastoral Care: An International Journal of Personal, Social and Emotional Development 31: 53–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• O’Brien, Niamh, Carol Munn-Giddings, and Tina Moules. 2018. The Ethics of Involving Young People Directly in the Research Process. Childhood Remixed , 115–28. Available online: https://www.uos.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Childhood%20Remixed_Journal_2018%20updated.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2023).
• O’Higgins Norman, J., Christian Berger, Christophe Cornu, Donna Cross, Magnus Loftsson, Dorte Marie Sondergaard, Elizabethe Payne, and Shoko Yoneyama. 2021. Presenting a Proposed Revised Definition of School Bullying . Stockholm: World Anti-Bullying Forum & UNESCO. Paris: Ministère de l’éducation Nationale, de la Jeunesse et des Sports. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, Dan. 2013. School Bullying: Development and Some Important Challenges. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 9: 752–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ozer, Emily J., and Laura Douglas. 2015. Assessing the key processes of youth-led participatory research: Psychometric analysis and application of an observational rating scale. Youth & Society 47: 29–50. [ Google Scholar ]
• Patten, Mildred. 2016. Questionnaire Research: A Practical Guide . London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Percy-Smith, Barry. 2012. Exploring the role of children and young people as agents of change in sustainable community development. The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability 18: 323–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Resnick, Lauren B. 2010. Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher 39: 183–97. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Reynaert, Didier, Maria Bouverne-de-Bie, and Stijn Vandevelde. 2009. A Review of Children’s Rights Literature Since the Adopton of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Childhood 16: 518. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Leanna Stiefel, and Michah W. Rothbart. 2016. Do top dogs rule in middle school? Evidence on bullying, safety, and belonging. American Educational Research Journal 53: 1450–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Scott, William R. 2008. Approaching adulthood: The maturing of institutional theory. Theory and Society 37: 427–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shamrova, Daria P., and Cristy E. Cummings. 2017. Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities. Children and Youth Services Review 81: 400–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Skelton, Tracey. 2008. Research with children and young people: Exploring the tensions between ethics, competence and participation. Children’s Geographies 6: 21–36. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slattery, Lindsey. 2019. Defining the word bullying: Inconsistencies and lack of clarity among current definitions. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 63: 227–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Slonje, Robert, and Peter K. Smith. 2008. Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 49: 147–54. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spyrou, Spyros. 2011. The limits of children’s voices: From authenticity to critical, reflexive representation. Childhood 18: 151–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stoudt, Brett G., Peter Kuriloff, Michael C. Reichert, and Sharon M. Ravitch. 2010. Educating for Hegeony, Researching for Change: Collaborating with Teachers and Students to Examine Bullying at an Elite Private School. In Class Privilege & Education Advantage . Edited by Adam Howard and Ruben A. Gaztambide-Fernandez. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 31–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornberg, Robert, and Hanna Delby. 2019. How do secondary school students explain bullying? Educational Research 61: 142–60. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Tofteng, Ditte, and Mette Bladt. 2020. ‘Upturned participation’ and youth work: Using a Critical Utopian Action Research approach to foster engagement. Educational Action Research 28: 112–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaillancourt, Tracy, Patricia McDougall, Shelley Hymel, Amanda Krygsman, Jessie Miller, Kelley Stiver, and Clinton Davis. 2008. Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? International Journal of Behavioral Development 32: 502–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vaughn, Lisa M., and Farrah Jacquez. 2020. Participatory Research Methods: Choice Points in the Research Process. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 1. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Webb, Christine. 1989. Action Research: Philosophy, methods and personal experiences. Journal of Advanced Nursing 14: 403–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wikipedia. 2022. Misogyny . Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny (accessed on 30 January 2023).
• Wójcik, Małgorzata, and Krzysztof Rzeńca. 2021. Disclosing or hiding bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from former victims’ point of view. School Mental Health 13: 808–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Younan, Ben. 2019. A systematic review of bullying definitions: How definition and format affect study outcome. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 11: 109–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

O’Brien, N.; Doyle, A. Exploring School Bullying: Designing the Research Question with Young Co-Researchers. Soc. Sci. 2023 , 12 , 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12050276

O’Brien N, Doyle A. Exploring School Bullying: Designing the Research Question with Young Co-Researchers. Social Sciences . 2023; 12(5):276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12050276

O’Brien, Niamh, and Audrey Doyle. 2023. "Exploring School Bullying: Designing the Research Question with Young Co-Researchers" Social Sciences 12, no. 5: 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12050276

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 344 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue

• Published: 12 August 2022
• Volume 4 , pages 175–179, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Paul Horton 1 &
• Selma Therese Lyng 2  

10k Accesses

12 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

School bullying research has a long history, stretching all the way back to a questionnaire study undertaken in the USA in the late 1800s (Burk, 1897 ). However, systematic school bullying research began in earnest in Scandinavia in the early 1970s with the work of Heinemann ( 1972 ) and Olweus ( 1978 ). Highlighting the extent to which research on bullying has grown exponentially since then, Smith et al. ( 2021 ) found that there were only 83 articles with the term “bully” in the title or abstract published in the Web of Science database prior to 1989. The numbers of articles found in the following decades were 458 (1990–1999), 1,996 (2000–2009), and 9,333 (2010–2019). Considering cyberbullying more specifically, Smith and Berkkun ( 2017 , cited in Smith et al., 2021 ) conducted a search of Web of Science with the terms “cyber* and bully*; cyber and victim*; electronic bullying; Internet bullying; and online harassment” until the year 2015 and found that while there were no articles published prior to 2000, 538 articles were published between 2000 and 2015, with the number of articles increasing every year (p. 49).

Numerous authors have pointed out that research into school bullying and cyberbullying has predominantly been conducted using quantitative methods, with much less use of qualitative or mixed methods (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Hutson, 2018 ; Maran & Begotti, 2021 ; Smith et al., 2021 ). In their recent analysis of articles published between 1976 and 2019 (in WoS, with the search terms “bully*; victim*; cyberbullying; electronic bullying; internet bullying; and online harassment”), Smith et al. ( 2021 , pp. 50–51) found that of the empirical articles selected, more than three-quarters (76.3%) were based on quantitative data, 15.4% were based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, and less than one-tenth (8.4%) were based on qualitative data alone. What is more, they found that the proportion of articles based on qualitative or mixed methods has been decreasing over the past 15 years (Smith et al., 2021 ). While the search criteria excluded certain types of qualitative studies (e.g., those published in books, doctoral theses, and non-English languages), this nonetheless highlights the extent to which qualitative research findings risk being overlooked in the vast sea of quantitative research.

School bullying and cyberbullying are complex phenomena, and a range of methodological approaches is thus needed to understand their complexity (Pellegrini & Bartini, 2000 ; Thornberg, 2011 ). Indeed, over-relying on quantitative methods limits understanding of the contexts and experiences of bullying (Hong & Espelage, 2012 ; Patton et al., 2017 ). Qualitative methods are particularly useful for better understanding the social contexts, processes, interactions, experiences, motivations, and perspectives of those involved (Hutson, 2018 ; Patton et al., 2017 ; Thornberg, 2011 ; Torrance, 2000 ).

Smith et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that the “continued emphasis on quantitative studies may be due to increasingly sophisticated methods such as structural equation modeling … network analysis … time trend analyses … latent profile analyses … and multi-polygenic score approaches” (p. 56). However, the authors make no mention of the range or sophistication of methods used in qualitative studies. Although there are still proportionately few qualitative studies of school bullying and cyberbullying in relation to quantitative studies, and this gap appears to be increasing, qualitative studies have utilized a range of qualitative data collection methods. These methods have included but are not limited to ethnographic fieldwork and participant observations (e.g., Eriksen & Lyng, 2018 ; Gumpel et al., 2014 ; Horton, 2019 ), digital ethnography (e.g., Rachoene & Oyedemi, 2015 ; Sylwander, 2019 ), meta-ethnography (e.g., Dennehy et al., 2020 ; Moretti & Herkovits, 2021 ), focus group interviews (e.g., Odenbring, 2022 ; Oliver & Candappa, 2007 ; Ybarra et al., 2019 ), semi-structured group and individual interviews (e.g., Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016 ; Lyng, 2018 ; Mishna et al., 2005 ; Varjas et al., 2013 ), vignettes (e.g., Jennifer & Cowie, 2012 ; Khanolainen & Semenova, 2020 ; Strindberg et al., 2020 ), memory work (e.g., Johnson et al., 2014 ; Malaby, 2009 ), literature studies (e.g., Lopez-Ropero, 2012 ; Wiseman et al., 2019 ), photo elicitation (e.g., Ganbaatar et al., 2021 ; Newman et al., 2006 ; Walton & Niblett, 2013 ), photostory method (e.g., Skrzypiec et al., 2015 ), and other visual works produced by children and young people (e.g., Bosacki et al., 2006 ; Gillies-Rezo & Bosacki, 2003 ).

This body of research has also included a variety of qualitative data analysis methods, such as grounded theory (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Bjereld, 2018 ; Thornberg, 2018 ), thematic analysis (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2016 ; Forsberg & Horton, 2022 ), content analysis (e.g., Temko, 2019 ; Wiseman & Jones, 2018 ), conversation analysis (e.g., Evaldsson & Svahn, 2012 ; Tholander, 2019 ), narrative analysis (e.g., Haines-Saah et al., 2018 ), interpretative phenomenological analysis (e.g., Hutchinson, 2012 ; Tholander et al., 2020 ), various forms of discourse analysis (e.g., Ellwood & Davies, 2010 ; Hepburn, 1997 ; Ringrose & Renold, 2010 ), including discursive psychological analysis (e.g., Clarke et al., 2004 ), and critical discourse analysis (e.g., Barrett & Bound, 2015 ; Bethune & Gonick, 2017 ; Horton, 2021 ), as well as theoretically informed analyses from an array of research traditions (e.g., Davies, 2011 ; Jacobson, 2010 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2005 ).

In light of the growing volume and variety of qualitative studies during the past two decades, we invited researchers to discuss and explore methodological issues related to their qualitative school bullying and cyberbullying research. The articles included in this special issue of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention discuss different qualitative methods, reflect on strengths and limitations — possibilities and challenges, and suggest implications for future qualitative and mixed-methods research.

Included Articles

Qualitative studies — focusing on social, relational, contextual, processual, structural, and/or societal factors and mechanisms — have formed the basis for several contributions during the last two decades that have sought to expand approaches to understanding and theorizing the causes of cyber/bullying. Some have also argued the need for expanding the commonly used definition of bullying, based on Olweus ( 1993 ) (e.g., Allen, 2015 ; Ellwood & Davies, 2010 Goldsmid & Howie, 2014 ; Ringrose & Rawlings,  2015 ; Søndergaard, 2012 ; Walton, 2011 ). In the first article of the special issue, Using qualitative methods to measure and understand key features of adolescent bullying: A call to action , Natalie Spadafora, Anthony Volk, and Andrew Dane instead discuss the usefulness of qualitative methods for improving measures and bettering our understanding of three specific key definitional features of bullying. Focusing on the definition put forward by Volk et al. ( 2014 ), they discuss the definitional features of power imbalance , goal directedness (replacing “intent to harm” in order not to assume conscious awareness, and to include a wide spectrum of goals that are intentionally and strategically pursued by bullies), and harmful impact (replacing “negative actions” in order to focus on the consequences for the victim, as well as circumventing difficult issues related to “repetition” in the traditional definition).

Acknowledging that these three features are challenging to capture using quantitative methods, Spadafora, Volk, and Dane point to existing qualitative studies that shed light on the features of power imbalance, goal directedness and harmful impact in bullying interactions — and put forward suggestions for future qualitative studies. More specifically, the authors argue that qualitative methods, such as focus groups, can be used to investigate the complexity of power relations at not only individual, but also social levels. They also highlight how qualitative methods, such as diaries and autoethnography, may help researchers gain a better understanding of the motives behind bullying behavior; from the perspectives of those engaging in it. Finally, the authors demonstrate how qualitative methods, such as ethnographic fieldwork and semi-structured interviews, can provide important insights into the harmful impact of bullying and how, for example, perceived harmfulness may be connected to perceived intention.

In the second article, Understanding bullying and cyberbullying through an ecological systems framework: The value of qualitative interviewing in a mixed methods approach , Faye Mishna, Arija Birze, and Andrea Greenblatt discuss the ways in which utilizing qualitative interviewing in mixed method approaches can facilitate greater understanding of bullying and cyberbullying. Based on a longitudinal and multi-perspective mixed methods study of cyberbullying, the authors demonstrate not only how qualitative interviewing can augment quantitative findings by examining process, context and meaning for those involved, but also how qualitative interviewing can lead to new insights and new areas of research. They also show how qualitative interviewing can help to capture nuances and complexity by allowing young people to express their perspectives and elaborate on their answers to questions. In line with this, the authors also raise the importance of qualitative interviewing for providing young people with space for self-reflection and learning.

In the third article, Q methodology as an innovative addition to bullying researchers’ methodological repertoire , Adrian Lundberg and Lisa Hellström focus on Q methodology as an inherently mixed methods approach, producing quantitative data from subjective viewpoints, and thus supplementing more mainstream quantitative and qualitative approaches. The authors outline and exemplify Q methodology as a research technique, focusing on the central feature of Q sorting. The authors further discuss the contribution of Q methodology to bullying research, highlighting the potential of Q methodology to address challenges related to gaining the perspectives of hard-to-reach populations who may either be unwilling or unable to share their personal experiences of bullying. As the authors point out, the use of card sorting activities allows participants to put forward their subjective perspectives, in less-intrusive settings for data collection and without disclosing their own personal experiences. The authors also illustrate how the flexibility of Q sorting can facilitate the participation of participants with limited verbal literacy and/or cognitive function through the use of images, objects or symbols. In the final part of the paper, Lundberg and Hellström discuss implications for practice and suggest future directions for using Q methodology in bullying and cyberbullying research, particularly with hard-to-reach populations.

In the fourth article, The importance of being attentive to social processes in school bullying research: Adopting a constructivist grounded theory approach , Camilla Forsberg discusses the use of constructivist grounded theory (CGT) in her research, focusing on social structures, norms, and processes. Forsberg first outlines CGT as a theory-methods package that is well suited to meet the call for more qualitative research on participants’ experiences and the social processes involved in school bullying. Forsberg emphasizes three key focal aspects of CGT, namely focus on participants’ main concerns; focus on meaning, actions, and processes; and focus on symbolic interactionism. She then provides examples and reflections from her own ethnographic and interview-based research, from different stages of the research process. In the last part of the article, Forsberg argues that prioritizing the perspectives of participants is an ethical stance, but one which comes with a number of ethical challenges, and points to ways in which CGT is helpful in dealing with these challenges.

In the fifth article, A qualitative meta-study of youth voice and co-participatory research practices: Informing cyber/bullying research methodologies , Deborah Green, Carmel Taddeo, Deborah Price, Foteini Pasenidou, and Barbara Spears discuss how qualitative meta-studies can be used to inform research methodologies for studying school bullying and cyberbullying. Drawing on the findings of five previous qualitative studies, and with a transdisciplinary and transformative approach, the authors illustrate and exemplify how previous qualitative research can be analyzed to gain a better understanding of the studies’ collective strengths and thus consider the findings and methods beyond the original settings where the research was conducted. In doing so, the authors highlight the progression of youth voice and co-participatory research practices, the centrality of children and young people to the research process and the enabling effect of technology — and discuss challenges related to ethical issues, resource and time demands, the role of gatekeepers, and common limitations of qualitative studies on youth voice and co-participatory research practices.

Taken together, the five articles illustrate the diversity of qualitative methods used to study school bullying and cyberbullying and highlight the need for further qualitative research. We hope that readers will find the collection of articles engaging and that the special issue not only gives impetus to increased qualitative focus on the complex phenomena of school bullying and cyberbullying but also to further discussions on both methodological and analytical approaches.

Allen, K. A. (2015). “We don’t have bullying, but we have drama”: Understandings of bullying and related constructs within the school milieu of a U.S. high school. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment , 25 (3), 159–181.

Barrett, B., & Bound, A. M. (2015). A critical discourse analysis of No Promo Homo policies in US schools. Educational Studies, 51 (4), 267–283.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bethune, J., & Gonick, M. (2017). Schooling the mean girl: A critical discourse analysis of teacher resource materials. Gender and Education, 29 (3), 389–404.

Bjereld, Y. (2018). The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim’s point of view. Journal of Health Psychology, 23 (8), 1110–1118.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bosacki, S. L., Marini, Z. A., & Dane, A. V. (2006). Voices from the classroom: Pictorial and narrative representations of children’s bullying experiences. Journal of Moral Education, 35 (2), 231–245.

Burk, F. L. (1897). Teasing and Bullying. Pedagogical Seminary, 4 (3), 336–371.

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). ‘Kids are just cruel anyway’: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43 (4), 531–550.

Cunningham, C. E., Mapp, C., Rimas, H., Cunningham, S. M., Vaillancourt, T., & Marcus, M. (2016). What limits the effectiveness of antibullying programs? A thematic analysis of the perspective of students. Psychology of Violence, 6 (4), 596–606.

Davies, B. (2011). Bullies as guardians of the moral order or an ethic of truths? Children & Society, 25 , 278–286.

Dennehy, R., Meaney, S., Walsh, K. A., Sinnott, C., Cronin, M., & Arensman, E. (2020). Young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of cyberbullying: A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51 , 101379.

Ellwood, C., & Davies, B. (2010). Violence and the moral order in contemporary schooling: A discursive analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 7 (2), 85–98.

Eriksen, I. M., & Lyng, S. T. (2018). Relational aggression among boys: Blind spots and hidden dramas. Gender and Education, 30 (3), 396–409.

Evaldsson, A. -C., Svahn, J. (2012). School bullying and the micro-politics of girls’ gossip disputes. In S. Danby & M. Theobald (Eds.). Disputes in everyday life: Social and moral orders of children and young people (Sociological Studies of Children and Youth, Vol. 15) (pp. 297–323). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.

Forsberg, C., & Horton, P. (2022). ‘Because I am me’: School bullying and the presentation of self in everyday school life. Journal of Youth Studies, 25 (2), 136–150.

Forsberg, C., & Thornberg, R. (2016). The social ordering of belonging: Children’s perspectives on bullying. International Journal of Educational Research, 78 , 13–23.

Ganbaatar, D., Vaughan, C., Akter, S., & Bohren, M. A. (2021). Exploring the identities and experiences of young queer people in Mongolia using visual research methods. Culture, Health & Sexuality . Advance Online Publication: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1998631

Gillies-Rezo, S., & Bosacki, S. (2003). Invisible bruises: Kindergartners’ perceptions of bullying. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 8 (2), 163–177.

Goldsmid, S., & Howie, P. (2014). Bullying by definition: An examination of definitional components of bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 19 (2), 210–225.

Gumpel, T. P., Zioni-Koren, V., & Bekerman, Z. (2014). An ethnographic study of participant roles in school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 40 (3), 214–228.

Haines-Saah, R. J., Hilario, C. T., Jenkins, E. K., Ng, C. K. Y., & Johnson, J. L. (2018). Understanding adolescent narratives about “bullying” through an intersectional lens: Implications for youth mental health interventions. Youth & Society, 50 (5), 636–658.

Heinemann, P. -P. (1972). Mobbning – gruppvåld bland barn och vuxna [Bullying – group violence amongst children and adults]. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.

Hepburn, A. (1997). Discursive strategies in bullying talk. Education and Society, 15 (1), 13–31.

Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of mixed methods research on bullying and peer victimization in school. Educational Review, 64 (1), 115–126.

Horton, P. (2019). The bullied boy: Masculinity, embodiment, and the gendered social-ecology of Vietnamese school bullying. Gender and Education, 31 (3), 394–407.

Horton, P. (2021). Building walls: Trump election rhetoric, bullying and harassment in US schools. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 8 (1), 7–32.

Hutchinson, M. (2012). Exploring the impact of bullying on young bystanders. Educational Psychology in Practice, 28 (4), 425–442.

Hutson, E. (2018). Integrative review of qualitative research on the emotional experience of bullying victimization in youth. The Journal of School Nursing, 34 (1), 51–59.

Jacobson, R. B. (2010). A place to stand: Intersubjectivity and the desire to dominate. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 29 , 35–51.

Jennifer, D., & Cowie, H. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Moral emotional attributions in relation to primary school bullying. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3–4), 229–241.

Johnson, C. W., Singh, A. A., & Gonzalez, M. (2014). “It’s complicated”: Collective memories of transgender, queer, and questioning youth in high school. Journal of Homosexuality, 61 (3), 419–434.

Khanolainen, D., & Semenova, E. (2020). School bullying through graphic vignettes: Developing a new arts-based method to study a sensitive topic. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1–15.

Lopez-Ropero, L. (2012). ‘You are a flaw in the pattern’: Difference, autonomy and bullying in YA fiction. Children’s Literature in Education, 43 , 145–157.

Lyng, S. T. (2018). The social production of bullying: Expanding the repertoire of approaches to group dynamics. Children & Society, 32 (6), 492–502.

Malaby, M. (2009). Public and secret agents: Personal power and reflective agency in male memories of childhood violence and bullying. Gender and Education, 21 (4), 371–386.

Maran, D. A., & Begotti, T. (2021). Measurement issues relevant to qualitative studies. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 233–249). John Wiley & Sons.

Mishna, F., Scarcello, I., Pepler, D., & Wiener, J. (2005). Teachers’ understandings of bullying. Canadian Journal of Education, 28 (4), 718–738.

Moretti, C., & Herkovits, D. (2021). Victims, perpetrators, and bystanders: A meta-ethnography of roles in cyberbullying. Cad. Saúde Pública, 37 (4), e00097120.

Newman, M., Woodcock, A., & Dunham, P. (2006). ‘Playtime in the borderlands’: Children’s representations of school, gender and bullying through photographs and interviews. Children’s Geographies, 4 (3), 289–302.

Odenbring, Y. (2022). Standing alone: Sexual minority status and victimisation in a rural lower secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 (5), 480–494.

Oliver, C., & Candappa, M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling.’ Oxford Review of Education, 33 (1), 71–86.

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools – Bullies and the whipping boys . Wiley.

Google Scholar  

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

Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Patel, S., & Kral, M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18 (1), 3–16.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Bartini, M. (2000). A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (3), 699–725.

Rachoene, M., & Oyedemi, T. (2015). From self-expression to social aggression: Cyberbullying culture among South African youth on Facebook. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research , 41 (3), 302–319.

Ringrose, J., & Rawlings, V. (2015). Posthuman performativity, gender and ‘school bullying’: Exploring the material-discursive intra-actions of skirts, hair, sluts, and poofs.  Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics , 3 (2), 80–119.

Ringrose, J., & Renold, E. (2010). Normative cruelties and gender deviants: The performative effects of bully discourses for girls and boys in school. British Educational Research Journal, 36 (4), 573–596.

Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., & Sandhu, D. (2015). Using the PhotoStory method to understand the cultural context of youth victimization in the Punjab. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 7 (1), 52–68.

Smith, P., Robinson, S., & Slonje, R. (2021). The school bullying research program: Why and how it has developed. In P. K. Smith & J. O’Higgins Norman (Eds.). The Wiley handbook of bullying (pp. 42–59). John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, P. K., & Berkkun, F. (2017). How research on school bullying has developed. In C. McGuckin & L. Corcoran (Eds.), Bullying and cyberbullying: Prevalence, psychological impacts and intervention strategies (pp. 11–27). Hauppage, NY: Nova Science.

Strindberg, J., Horton, P., & Thornberg, R. (2020). The fear of being singled out: Pupils’ perspectives on victimization and bystanding in bullying situations. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 41 (7), 942–957.

Sylwander, K. R. (2019). Affective atmospheres of sexualized hate among youth online: A contribution to bullying and cyberbullying research on social atmosphere. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1 , 269–284.

Søndergaard, D. M. (2012). Bullying and social exclusion anxiety in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33 (3), 355–372.

Temko, E. (2019). Missing structure: A critical content analysis of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Children & Society, 33 (1), 1–12.

Tholander, M. (2019). The making and unmaking of a bullying victim. Interchange, 50 , 1–23.

Tholander, M., Lindberg, A., & Svensson, D. (2020). “A freak that no one can love”: Difficult knowledge in testimonials on school bullying. Research Papers in Education, 35 (3), 359–377.

Thornberg, R. (2011). ‘She’s weird!’ – The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society, 25 , 258–267.

Thornberg, R. (2018). School bullying and fitting into the peer landscape: A grounded theory field study. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39 (1), 144–158.

Torrance, D. A. (2000). Qualitative studies into bullying within special schools. British Journal of Special Education, 27 (1), 16–21.

Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology hurts? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12 (1), 27–44.

Volk, A. A., Dane, A. V., & Marini, Z. A. (2014). What is bullying? A Theoretical Redefinition, Developmental Review, 34 (4), 327–343.

Walton, G. (2005). Bullying widespread. Journal of School Violence, 4 (1), 91–118.

Walton, G. (2011). Spinning our wheels: Reconceptualizing bullying beyond behaviour-focused Approaches.  Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education , 32 (1), 131–144.

Walton, G., & Niblett, B. (2013). Investigating the problem of bullying through photo elicitation. Journal of Youth Studies, 16 (5), 646–662.

Wiseman, A. M., & Jones, J. S. (2018). Examining depictions of bullying in children’s picturebooks: A content analysis from 1997 to 2017. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32 (2), 190–201.

Wiseman, A. M., Vehabovic, N., & Jones, J. S. (2019). Intersections of race and bullying in children’s literature: Transitions, racism, and counternarratives. Early Childhood Education Journal, 47 , 465–474.

Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., Hong, J. S., & Prescott, T. L. (2019). Perceptions of middle school youth about school bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 75 , 175–187.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the authors for sharing their work; Angela Mazzone, James O’Higgins Norman, and Sameer Hinduja for their editorial assistance; and Dorte Marie Søndergaard on the editorial board for suggesting a special issue on qualitative research in the journal.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning (IBL), Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Paul Horton

Work Research Institute (WRI), Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway

Selma Therese Lyng

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Horton .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Horton, P., Lyng, S.T. Qualitative Methods in School Bullying and Cyberbullying Research: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 4 , 175–179 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Download citation

Published : 12 August 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-022-00139-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Teens and Cyberbullying 2022

Nearly half of U.S. teens have been bullied or harassed online, with physical appearance being seen as a relatively common reason why. Older teen girls are especially likely to report being targeted by online abuse overall and because of their appearance

Table of contents.

• Acknowledgments
• Methodology

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand teens’ experiences with and views on bullying and harassment online. For this analysis, we surveyed 1,316 U.S. teens. The survey was conducted online by Ipsos from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, which is an independent committee of experts that specializes in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents who were a part of its  KnowledgePanel , a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories.

Here are the  questions used for this report , along with responses, and  its methodology .

While bullying existed long before the internet, the rise of smartphones and social media has brought a new and more public arena into play for this aggressive behavior.

Nearly half of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 (46%) report ever experiencing at least one of six cyberbullying behaviors asked about in a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-May 4, 2022. 1

The most commonly reported behavior in this survey is name-calling, with 32% of teens saying they have been called an offensive name online or on their cellphone. Smaller shares say they have had false rumors spread about them online (22%) or have been sent explicit images they didn’t ask for (17%).

Some 15% of teens say they have experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with, while 10% say they have been physically threatened and 7% of teens say they have had explicit images of them shared without their consent.

In total, 28% of teens have experienced multiple types of cyberbullying.

Defining cyberbullying in this report

This report measures cyberbullying of teens using six distinct behaviors:

• Offensive name-calling
• Spreading of false rumors about them
• Receiving explicit images they didn’t ask for
• Physical threats
• Constantly being asked where they are, what they’re doing, or who they’re with by someone other than a parent
• Having explicit images of them shared without their consent

Teens who indicate they have personally experienced any of these behaviors online or while using their cellphone are considered targets of cyberbullying in this report. The terms “cyberbullying” and “online harassment” are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Age and gender are related to teens’ cyberbullying experiences, with older teen girls being especially likely to face this abuse

Teens’ experiences with online harassment vary by age. Some 49% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced at least one of the six online behaviors, compared with 42% of those ages 13 to 14. While similar shares of older and younger teens report being the target of name-calling or rumor spreading, older teens are more likely than their younger counterparts (22% vs. 11%) to say someone has sent them explicit images they didn’t ask for, an act sometimes referred to as cyberflashing ; had someone share explicit images of them without their consent, in what is also known as revenge porn (8% vs. 4%); or been the target of persistent questioning about their whereabouts and activities (17% vs. 12%).

While there is no gender difference in having ever experienced online abuse, teen girls are more likely than teen boys to say false rumors have been spread about them. But further differences are seen when looking at age and gender together: 15- to 17-year-old girls stand out for being particularly likely to have faced any cyberbullying, compared with younger teen girls and teen boys of any age. Some 54% of girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least one of the six cyberbullying behaviors, while 44% of 15- to 17-year-old boys and 41% of boys and girls ages 13 to 14 say the same. These older teen girls are also more likely than younger teen girls and teen boys of any age to report being the target of false rumors and constant monitoring by someone other than a parent.

White, Black and Hispanic teens do not statistically differ in having ever been harassed online, but specific types of online attacks are more prevalent among certain groups. 2 For example, White teens are more likely to report being targeted by false rumors than Black teens. Hispanic teens are more likely than White or Black teens to say they have been asked constantly where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with by someone other than a parent.

There are also differences by household income when it comes to physical threats. Teens who are from households making less than $30,000 annually are twice as likely as teens living in households making $75,000 or more a year to say they have been physically threatened online (16% vs. 8%).

Beyond those differences related to specific harassing behaviors, older teen girls are particularly likely to say they experience multiple types of online harassment. Some 32% of teen girls have experienced two or more types of online harassment asked about in this survey, while 24% of teen boys say the same. And 15- to 17-year-olds are more likely than 13- to 14-year-olds to have been the target of multiple types of cyberbullying (32% vs. 22%).

These differences are largely driven by older teen girls: 38% of teen girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least two of the harassing behaviors asked about in this survey, while roughly a quarter of younger teen girls and teen boys of any age say the same.

Beyond demographic differences, being the target of these behaviors and facing multiple types of these behaviors also vary by the amount of time youth spend online. Teens who say they are online almost constantly are not only more likely to have ever been harassed online than those who report being online less often (53% vs 40%), but are also more likely to have faced multiple forms of online abuse (37% vs. 21%).

These are some of the findings from a Pew Research Center online survey of 1,316 U.S. teens conducted from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

Black teens are about twice as likely as Hispanic or White teens to say they think their race or ethnicity made them a target of online abuse

There are numerous reasons why a teen may be targeted with online abuse. This survey asked youth if they believed their physical appearance, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation or political views were a factor in them being the target of abusive behavior online.

Teens are most likely to say their physical appearance made them the target of cyberbullying. Some 15% of all teens think they were cyberbullied because of their appearance.

About one-in-ten teens say they were targeted because of their gender (10%) or their race or ethnicity (9%). Teens less commonly report being harassed for their sexual orientation or their political views – just 5% each.

Looking at these numbers in a different way, 31% of teens who have personally experienced online harassment or bullying think they were targeted because of their physical appearance. About one-in-five cyberbullied teens say they were targeted due to their gender (22%) or their racial or ethnic background (20%). And roughly one-in-ten affected teens point to their sexual orientation (12%) or their political views (11%) as a reason why they were targeted with harassment or bullying online.

The reasons teens cite for why they were targeted for cyberbullying are largely similar across major demographic groups, but there are a few key differences. For example, teen girls overall are more likely than teen boys to say they have been cyberbullied because of their physical appearance (17% vs. 11%) or their gender (14% vs. 6%). Older teens are also more likely to say they have been harassed online because of their appearance: 17% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying because of their physical appearance, compared with 11% of teens ages 13 to 14.

Older teen girls are particularly likely to think they have been harassed online because of their physical appearance: 21% of all 15- to 17-year-old girls think they have been targeted for this reason. This compares with about one-in-ten younger teen girls or teen boys, regardless of age, who think they have been cyberbullied because of their appearance.

A teen’s racial or ethnic background relates to whether they report having been targeted for cyberbullying because of race or ethnicity. Some 21% of Black teens report being made a target because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 11% of Hispanic teens and an even smaller share of White teens (4%).

There are no partisan differences in teens being targeted for their political views, with 5% of those who identify as either Democratic or Republican – including those who lean toward each party – saying they think their political views contributed to them being cyberbullied.

Black or Hispanic teens are more likely than White teens to say cyberbullying is a major problem for people their age

In addition to measuring teens’ own personal experiences with cyberbullying, the survey also sought to understand young people’s views about online harassment more generally.

The vast majority of teens say online harassment and online bullying are a problem for people their age, with 53% saying they are a major problem. Just 6% of teens think they are not a problem.

Certain demographic groups stand out for how much of a problem they say cyberbullying is. Seven-in-ten Black teens and 62% of Hispanic teens say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with 46% of White teens. Teens from households making under $75,000 a year are similarly inclined to call this type of harassment a major problem, with 62% making this claim, compared with 47% of teens from more affluent homes. Teen girls are also more likely than boys to view cyberbullying as a major problem.

Views also vary by community type. Some 65% of teens living in urban areas say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with about half of suburban and rural teens.

Partisan differences appear as well: Six-in-ten Democratic teens say this is a major problem for people their age, compared with 44% of Republican teens saying this.

Roughly three-quarters of teens or more think elected officials and social media sites aren’t adequately addressing online abuse

In recent years, there have been several initiatives and programs aimed at curtailing bad behavior online, but teens by and large view some of those behind these efforts – including social media companies and politicians – in a decidedly negative light.

According to teens, parents are doing the best of the five groups asked about in terms of addressing online harassment and online bullying, with 66% of teens saying parents are doing at least a good job, including one-in-five saying it is an excellent job. Roughly four-in-ten teens report thinking teachers (40%) or law enforcement (37%) are doing a good or excellent job addressing online abuse. A quarter of teens say social media sites are doing at least a good job addressing online harassment and cyberbullying, and just 18% say the same of elected officials. In fact, 44% of teens say elected officials have done a poor job addressing online harassment and online bullying.

Teens who have been cyberbullied are more critical of how various groups have addressed online bullying than those who haven’t

Teens who have experienced harassment or bullying online have a very different perspective on how various groups have been handling cyberbullying compared with those who have not faced this type of abuse. Some 53% of teens who have been cyberbullied say elected officials have done a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying, while 38% who have not undergone these experiences say the same (a 15 percentage point gap). Double-digit differences also appear between teens who have and have not been cyberbullied in their views on how law enforcement, social media sites and teachers have addressed online abuse, with teens who have been harassed or bullied online being more critical of each of these three groups. These harassed teens are also twice as likely as their peers who report no abuse to say parents have done a poor job of combatting online harassment and bullying.

Aside from these differences based on personal experience with cyberbullying, only a few differences are seen across major demographic groups. For example, Black teens express greater cynicism than White teens about how law enforcement has fared in this space: 33% of Black teens say law enforcement is doing a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying; 21% of White teens say the same. Hispanic teens (25%) do not differ from either group on this question.

Large majorities of teens believe permanent bans from social media and criminal charges can help reduce harassment on the platforms

Teens have varying views about possible actions that could help to curb the amount of online harassment youth encounter on social media.

While a majority of teens say each of five possible solutions asked about in the survey would at least help a little, certain measures are viewed as being more effective than others.

Teens see the most benefit in criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media or permanently locking these users out of their account. Half of teens say each of these options would help a lot in reducing the amount of harassment and bullying teens may face on social media sites.

About four-in-ten teens think that if social media companies looked for and deleted posts they think are bullying or harassing (42%) or if users of these platforms were required to use their real names and pictures (37%) it would help a lot in addressing these issues. The idea of forcing people to use their real name while online has long existed and been heavily debated: Proponents see it as a way to hold bad actors accountable and keep online conversations more civil , while detractors believe it would do little to solve harassment and could even  worsen it .

Three-in-ten teens say school districts monitoring students’ social media activity for bullying or harassment would help a lot. Some school districts already use digital monitoring software to help them identify worrying student behavior on school-owned devices , social media and other online platforms . However, these programs have been met with criticism regarding privacy issues , mixed results and whether they do more harm than good .

Having personally experienced online harassment is unrelated to a teen’s view on whether these potential measures would help a lot in reducing these types of adverse experiences on social media. Views do vary widely by a teen’s racial or ethnic background, however.

Black or Hispanic teens are consistently more optimistic than White teens about the effectiveness of each of these measures.

Majorities of both Black and Hispanic teens say permanently locking users out of their account if they bully or harass others or criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media would help a lot, while about four-in-ten White teens express each view.

In the case of permanent bans, Black teens further stand out from their Hispanic peers: Seven-in-ten say this would help a lot, followed by 59% of Hispanic teens and 42% of White teens.

• It is important to note that there are various ways researchers measure youths’ experiences with cyberbullying and online harassment. As a result, there may be a range of estimates for how many teens report having these experiences. In addition, since the Center last polled on this topic in 2018, there have been changes in how the surveys were conducted and how the questions were asked. For instance, the 2018 survey asked about bullying by listing a number of possible behaviors and asking respondents to “check all that apply.” This survey asked teens to answer “yes” or “no” to each item individually. Due to these changes, direct comparisons cannot be made across the two surveys. ↩
• There were not enough Asian American teen respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis. As always, their responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout the report. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Online Harassment & Bullying
• Teens & Tech
• Teens & Youth

Teens and Video Games Today

How teens and parents approach screen time, teens, social media and technology 2023, teens and social media: key findings from pew research center surveys, gun deaths among u.s. children and teens rose 50% in two years, most popular, report materials.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Understanding Alternative Bullying Perspectives Through Research Engagement With Young People

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.

Bullying research has traditionally been dominated by largescale cohort studies focusing on the personality traits of bullies and victims. These studies focus on bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes. A limitation of this approach is that it does not explain why bullying happens. Qualitative research can help shed light on these factors. This paper discusses the findings from four mainly qualitative research projects including a systematic review and three empirical studies involving young people to various degrees within the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research. Much quantitative research suggests that young people are a homogenous group and through the use of surveys and other large scale methods, generalizations can be drawn about how bullying is understood and how it can be dealt with. Findings from the studies presented in this paper, add to our understanding that young people appear particularly concerned about the role of wider contextual and relational factors in deciding if bullying has happened. These studies underscore the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Moreover, to appreciate the relational and social contexts underpinning bullying behaviors, adults and young people need to work together on bullying agendas and engage with multiple definitions, effects and forms of support. Qualitative methodologies, in particular participatory research opens up the complexities of young lives and enables these insights to come to the fore. Through this approach, effective supports can be designed based on what young people want and need rather than those interpreted as supportive through adult understanding.

Introduction

Research on school bullying has developed rapidly since the 1970s. Originating in social and psychological research in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, this body of research largely focusses on individualized personality traits of perpetrators and victims ( Olweus, 1995 ). Global interest in this phenomenon subsequently spread and bullying research began in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ). Usually quantitative in nature, many studies examine bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes ( Patton et al., 2017 ). Whilst quantitative research collates key demographic information to show variations in bullying behaviors and tendencies, this dominant bullying literature fails to explain why bullying happens. Nor does it attempt to understand the wider social contexts in which bullying occurs. Qualitative research on the other hand, in particular participatory research, can help shed light on these factors by highlighting the complexities of the contextual and relational aspects of bullying and the particular challenges associated with addressing it. Patton et al. (2017) in their systematic review of qualitative methods used in bullying research, found that the use of such methods can enhance academic and practitioner understanding of bullying.

In this paper, I draw on four bullying studies; one systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative research ( O’Brien, 2009 ) and three empirical qualitative studies ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ; O’Brien, 2016 , 2017 ) (see Table 1 below). I discuss how participatory research methodologies, to varying degrees, were used to facilitate bullying knowledge production among teams of young people and adults. Young people in these presented studies were consequently involved in the research process along a continuum of involvement ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ). To the far left of the continuum, young people involved in research are referred to as “active respondents” and their data informs teacher practice. To the middle of the continuum sit “students as co-researchers” who work with teachers to explore an issue which has been identified by that teacher. Finally to the right, sit “students as researchers” who conduct their own research with support from teachers. Moving from left to right of the continuum shows a shift in power dynamics between young people and adults where a partnership develops. Young people are therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspective, that of being a young person now.

The studies.

In this paper, I advocate for the active involvement of young people in the research process in order to enhance bullying knowledge. Traditional quantitative studies have a tendency to homogenize young people by suggesting similarity in thinking about what constitutes bullying. However, qualitative studies have demonstrated that regardless of variables, young people understand bullying in different ways so there is a need for further research that starts from these perspectives and focusses on issues that young people deem important. Consequently, participatory research allows for the stories of the collective to emerge without losing the stories of the individual, a task not enabled through quantitative approaches.

What Is Bullying?

Researching school bullying has been problematic and is partly related to the difficulty in defining it ( Espelage, 2018 ). Broadly speaking, bullying is recognized as aggressive, repeated, intentional behavior involving an imbalance of power aimed toward an individual or group of individuals who cannot easily defend themselves ( Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ). In more recent times, “traditional” bullying behaviors have been extended to include cyber-bullying, involving the use of the internet and mobile-phones ( Espelage, 2018 ). Disagreements have been noted in the literature about how bullying is defined by researchers linked to subject discipline and culture. Some researchers for example, disagree about the inclusion or not of repetition in definitions ( Griffin and Gross, 2004 ) and these disagreements have had an impact on interpreting findings and prevalence rates. However, evidence further suggests that young people also view bullying in different ways ( Guerin and Hennessy, 2002 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). Vaillancourt et al. (2008) explored differences between researchers and young people’s definitions of bullying, and found that children’s definitions were usually spontaneous, and did not always encompass the elements of repetition, power imbalance and intent. They concluded, that children need to be provided with a bullying definition so similarities and comparisons can be drawn. In contrast, Huang and Cornell (2015) found no evidence that the inclusion of a definition effected prevalence rates. Their findings, they suggest, indicate that young people use their own perceptions of bullying when answering self-report questionnaires and they are not influenced by an imposed definition.

Nevertheless, differences in children and young people’s bullying definitions are evident in the research literature and have been explained by recourse to age and stage of development ( Smith et al., 2002 ) and their assumed lack of understanding about what constitutes bullying ( Boulton and Flemington, 1996 ). Naylor et al. (2001) for example, found that younger children think similarly in their definitions of bullying, while Smith et al. (2002) found that 8 year olds did not distinguish as clearly between different forms of behavioral aggression as 14 year olds. Methodological limitations associated with understanding bullying have been identified by Forsberg et al. (2018) and Maunder and Crafter (2018) . These authors postulate that quantitative approaches, although providing crucial insights in understanding bullying, are reliant on pre-defined variables, which can shield some of the complexities that qualitative designs can unravel, as individual experiences of bullying are brought to the fore. Indeed, La Fontaine (1991) suggests that unlike standard self-report questionnaires and other quantitative methods used to collect bullying data, analyzing qualitative data such as those collected from a helpline, enables the voice of young people to be heard and consequently empowers adults to understand bullying on their terms rather than relying solely on interpretations and perceptions of adults. Moore and Maclean (2012) collected survey, as well as interview and focus group data, on victimization occurring on the journey to and from school. They found that what young people determined as victimization varied and was influenced by a multifaceted array of circumstances, some of which adults were unaware of. Context for example, played an important role where certain behaviors in one situation could be regarded as victimization while in another they were not. Specific behaviors including ignoring an individual was particularly hurtful and supporting a friend who was the subject of victimization could lead to their own victimization.

Lee (2006) suggests that some bullying research does not reflect individual experiences, and are thus difficult for participants to relate to. Canty et al. (2016) reiterates this and suggests that when researchers provide young people with bullying definitions in which to position their own experiences, this can mask some of the complexities that the research intends to uncover. Such approaches result in an oversight into the socially constructed and individual experiences of bullying ( Eriksen, 2018 ). Griffin and Gross (2004) further argue that when researchers use vague or ambiguous definitions an “overclassification of children as bullies or victims” (p. 381) ensues. Consequently, quantitative research does not consider children as reliable in interpreting their own lived experiences and therefore some of the interactions they consider as bullying, that do not fit within the conventional definitions, are concealed. This approach favors the adult definition of bullying regarding it as “more reliable” than the definitions of children and young people Canty et al. (2016) . The perceived “seriousness” of bullying has also been explored. Overall, young people and adults are more likely to consider direct bullying (face-to-face actions including hitting, threatening and calling names) as “more serious” than indirect bullying (rumor spreading, social exclusion, forcing others to do something they do not want to do) ( Maunder et al., 2010 ; Skrzypiec et al., 2011 ). This perception of “seriousness,” alongside ambiguous definitions of bullying, has further implications for reporting it. Despite the advice given to young people to report incidents of school bullying ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ), the literature suggests that many are reluctant to do so ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ).

Several factors have been highlighted as to why young people are reluctant to report bullying ( Black et al., 2010 ). deLara (2012) , found apprehension in reporting bullying to teachers due to the fear that they will either not do enough or too much and inadvertently make the situation worse, or fear that teachers will not believe young people. Research also shows that young people are reluctant to tell their parents about bullying due to perceived over-reaction and fear that the bullying will be reported to their school ( deLara, 2012 ; Moore and Maclean, 2012 ). Oliver and Candappa (2007) suggest that young people are more likely to confide in their friends than adults (see also Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, if young people believe they are being bullied, but are unable to recognize their experiences within a predefined definition of bullying, this is likely to impact on their ability to report it.

Research from psychology, sociology, education and other disciplines, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches, have enabled the generation of bullying knowledge to date. However, in order to understand why bullying happens and how it is influenced by wider social constructs there is a need for further qualitative studies, which hear directly from children and young people themselves. The next section of this paper discusses the theoretical underpinnings of this paper, which recognizes that young people are active agents in generating new bullying knowledge alongside adults.

Theoretical Underpinnings – Hearing From Children and Young People

The sociology of childhood ( James, 2007 ; Tisdall and Punch, 2012 ) and children’s rights agenda more broadly ( United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 ) have offered new understandings and methods for research which recognize children and young people as active agents and experts on their own lives. From this perspective, research is conducted with rather than on children and young people ( Kellett, 2010 ).

Participatory methodologies have proven particularly useful for involving young people in research as co-researchers (see for example O’Brien and Moules, 2007 ; Stoudt, 2009 ; Kellett, 2010 ; Spears et al., 2016 ). This process of enquiry actively involves those normally being studied in research activities. Previously, “traditional” researchers devalued the experiences of research participants arguing that due to their distance from them, they themselves are better equipped to interpret these experiences ( Beresford, 2006 ). However, Beresford (2006) suggests that the shorter the distance between direct experience and interpretation, the less distorted and inaccurate the resulting knowledge is likely to be. Jones (2004) further advocates that when young people’s voices are absent from research about them the research is incomplete. Certainly Spears et al. (2016) , adopted this approach in their study with the Young and Well Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) in Australia. Young people played an active role within a multidisciplinary team alongside researchers, practitioners and policymakers to co-create and co-evaluate the learning from four marketing campaigns for youth wellbeing through participatory research. Through this methodological approach, findings show that young people were able to reconceptualize mental health and wellbeing from their own perspectives as well as share their lived experiences with others ( Spears et al., 2016 ). Bland and Atweh (2007) , Ozer and Wright (2012) , highlight the benefits afforded to young people through this process, including participating in dialog with decision-makers and bringing aspects of teaching and learning to their attention.

Against this background, data presented for this paper represents findings from four studies underpinned by the ethos that bullying is socially constructed and is best understood by exploring the context to which it occurs ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ; Eriksen, 2018 ). This socially constructed view focusses on the evolving positions within young people’s groups, and argues that within a bullying situation sometimes a young person is the bully, sometimes the victim and sometimes the bystander/witness, which contrasts the traditional view of bullying ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). The focus therefore is on group relationships and dynamics. For that reason, Horton (2011) proposes that if bullying is an extensive problem including many young people, then focusing entirely on personality traits will not generate new bullying knowledge and will be problematic in terms of interventions. It is important to acknowledge that this change in focus and view of bullying and how it is manifested in groups, does not negate the individual experiences of bullying rather the focus shifts to the process of being accepted, or not, by the group ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

The Studies

This section provides a broad overview of the four included studies underpinned by participatory methodologies. Table 1 presents the details of each study. Young people were involved in the research process as respondents, co-researchers and commissioners of research, along a continuum as identified by Bragg and Fielding (2005) . This ranged from “active respondents” to the left of the continuum, “students as co-researchers” in the middle and “students as researchers” to the right of the continuum. Young people were therefore recognized as equal to adults in terms of what they can bring to the project from their own unique perspectives ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ).

A key finding from study one ( O’Brien, 2009 ) was the lack of voice afforded to young people through the research process and can be seen to reflect the far left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum, as young people were not directly involved as “active respondents” but their views were included in secondary data analysis and informed the studies that followed. For example, the quantitative studies used an agreed academic definition of bullying which may or may not have influenced how young participants defined bullying within the studies. On the other hand, the qualitative study involved a group of students in deciding which questions to ask of the research participants and in interpreting the findings.

In contrast, study two ( O’Brien and Moules, 2010 ) was commissioned and led by a group of young people called PEAR (Public health, Education, Awareness, Researchers), who were established to advise on public health research in England. PEAR members were based in two large English cities and comprised 20 young people aged between 13 and 20 years. The premise of the study was that PEAR members wanted to commission research into cyber bullying and the effects this has on mental health from the perspectives of young people rather than adult perspectives. This project was innovative as young people commissioned the research and participated as researchers ( Davey, 2011 ) and can be seen to reflect the middle “students as co-researchers” as well as moving toward to right “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum. Although the young people did not carry out the day-to-day work on the project, they were responsible for leading and shaping it. More importantly, the research topic and focus were decided with young people and adults together.

Study three ( O’Brien, 2016 ) involved five self-selecting students from an independent day and boarding school who worked with me to answer this question: What do young people in this independent day and boarding school view as the core issue of bullying in the school and how do they want to address this? These students called themselves R4U (Research for You) with the slogan researching for life without fear . Three cycles of Participatory Action Research (PAR) ensued, where decision making about direction of the research, including methods, analysis and dissemination of findings were made by the research team. As current students of the school, R4U had a unique “insider knowledge” that complemented my position as the “academic researcher.” By working together to generate understanding about bullying at the school, the findings thus reflected this diversity in knowledge. As the project evolved so too did the involvement of the young researchers and my knowledge as the “outsider” (see O’Brien et al., 2018a for further details). Similar to study two, this project is situated between the middle: “students as co-researchers” and the right: “students as researchers” of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum.

Study four ( O’Brien, 2017 ) was small-scale and involved interviewing four young people who were receiving support from a charity providing therapeutic and educational support to young people who self-exclude from school due to anxiety, as a result of bullying. Self-exclusion, for the purposes of this study, means that a young person has made a decision not to go to school. It is different from “being excluded” or “truanting” because these young people do not feel safe at school and are therefore too anxious to attend. Little is known about the experiences of young people who self-exclude due to bullying and this study helped to unravel some of these issues. This study reflects the left of Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum where the young people were involved as “active respondents” in informing adult understanding of the issue.

A variety of research methods were used across the four studies including questionnaires, interviews and focus groups (see Table 1 for more details). In studies two and three, young researchers were fundamental in deciding the types of questions to be asked, where they were asked and who we asked. In study three the young researchers conducted their own peer-led interviews. The diversity of methods used across the studies are a strength for this paper. An over-reliance on one method is not portrayed and the methods used reflected the requirements of the individual studies.

Informed Consent

Voluntary positive agreement to participate in research is referred to as “consent” while “assent,” refers to a person’s compliance to participate ( Coyne, 2010 ). The difference in these terms are normally used to distinguish the “legal competency of children over and under 16 years in relation to research.” ( Coyne, 2010 , 228). In England, children have a legal right to consent so therefore assent is non-applicable ( Coyne, 2010 ). However, there are still tensions surrounding the ability of children and young people under the age of 18 years to consent in research which are related to their vulnerability, age and stage of development ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ). The research in the three empirical studies (two, three and four) started from the premise that all young participants were competent to consent to participate and took the approach of Coyne (2010) who argues that parental/carer consent is not always necessary in social research. University Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are nonetheless usually unfamiliar with the theoretical underpinnings that children are viewed as social actors and generally able to consent for themselves ( Lambert and Glacken, 2011 ; Fox, 2013 ; Parsons et al., 2015 ).

In order to ensure the young people in these reported studies were fully informed of the intentions of each project and to adhere to ethical principles, age appropriate participant information sheets were provided to all participants detailing each study’s requirements. Young people were then asked to provide their own consent by signing a consent form, any questions they had about the studies were discussed. Information sheets were made available to parents in studies three and four. In study two, the parents of young people participating in the focus groups were informed of the study through the organizations used to recruit the young people. My full contact details were provided on these sheets so parents/carers could address any queries they had about the project if they wished. When young people participated in the online questionnaire (study two) we did not know who they were so could not provide separate information to parents. Consequently, all participants were given the opportunity to participate in the research without the consent of their parents/carers unless they were deemed incompetent to consent. In this case the onus was on the adult (parent or carer for example) to prove incompetency ( Alderson, 2007 ). Favorable ethical approval, including approval for the above consent procedures, was granted by the Faculty Research Ethics Committee at Anglia Ruskin University.

In the next section I provide a synthesis of the findings across the four studies before discussing how participatory research with young people can offer new understandings of bullying and its impacts on young people.

Although each study was designed to answer specific bullying research questions, the following key themes cut across all four studies 1 :

• • Impact of bullying on victim
• • Reporting bullying

Bullying Definitions

Young people had various understandings about what they considered bullying to be. Overall, participants agreed that aggressive direct behaviors, mainly focusing on physical aggression, constituted bullying:

“…if someone is physically hurt then that is bullying straight away.” (Female, study 3).

“I think [cyber-bullying is] not as bad because with verbal or physical, you are more likely to come in contact with your attacker regularly, and that can be disturbing. However, with cyber-bullying it is virtual so you can find ways to avoid the person.” (Female, study 2).

Name-calling was an ambiguous concept, young people generally believed that in isolation name-calling might not be bullying behavior or it could be interpreted as “joking” or “banter”:

“I never really see any, a bit of name calling and taking the mick but nothing ever serious.” (Male, study 3).

The concept of “banter” or “joking” was explored in study three as a result of the participatory design. Young people suggested “banter” involves:

“…a personal joke or group banter has no intention to harm another, it is merely playful jokes.” (Female, study 3).

However, underpinning this understanding of “banter” was the importance of intentionality:

“Banter saying things bad as a joke and everyone knows it is a joke.” (Male, study 3).

“Banter” was thus contentious when perception and reception were ambiguous. In some cases, “banter” was considered “normal behavior”:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke…” (Male, study 3).

The same view was evident in relation to cyber-bullying. Some participants were rather dismissive of this approach suggesting that it did not exist:

“I don’t really think it exists. If you’re being cyber-“bullied” then there is something wrong with you- it is insanely easy to avoid, by blocking people and so on. Perhaps it consists of people insulting you online?” (Male, study 2).

When young people considered additional factors added to name calling such as the type of name-calling, or aspects of repetition or intention, then a different view was apparent.

“…but it has to be constant it can’t be a single time because that always happens.” (Male, study 3).

Likewise with words used on social media, young people considered intentionality in their consideration of whether particular behaviors were bullying, highlighting important nuances in how bullying is conceptualized:

“Some people they don’t want to sound cruel but because maybe if you don’t put a smiley face on it, it might seem cruel when sometimes you don’t mean it.” (Female, study 2).

Study one also found that young people were more likely to discuss sexist or racist bullying in interviews or focus groups but this information was scarce in the questionnaire data. This is possibly as a result of how the questions were framed and the researchers’ perspectives informing the questions.

Evident across the four studies was the understanding young people had about the effects of continuous name-calling on victims:

“…you can take one comment, you can just like almost brush it off, but if you keep on being bullied and bullied and bullied then you might kind of think, hang on a minute, they’ve taken it a step too far, like it’s actually become more personal, whereas just like a cheeky comment between friends it’s become something that’s more serious and more personal and more annoying or hurtful to someone.” (Female, study 3).

“Cyber-bullying is basically still verbal bullying and is definitely psychological bullying. Any bullying is psychological though, really. And any bullying is going to be harmful.” (Female, study 2).

Aspects of indirect bullying (social exclusion) were features of studies one and three. For the most part, the research reviewed in study one found that as young people got older they were less likely to consider characteristics of social exclusion in their definitions of bullying. In study three, when discussing the school’s anti-bullying policy, study participants raised questions about “ isolating a student from a friendship group .” Some contested this statement as a form of bullying:

“…. there is avoiding, as in, not actively playing a role in trying to be friends which I don’t really see as bullying I see this as just not getting someone to join your friendship group. Whereas if you were actually leaving him out and rejecting him if he tries to be friends then I think I would see that as malicious and bullying.” (Male, study 3).

“Isolating a student from a friendship group – I believe there are various reasons for which a student can be isolated from a group – including by choice.” (Female, study 3).

Cyber-bullying was explored in detail in study two but less so in the other three studies. Most study two participants considered that cyber-bullying was just as harmful, or in some cases worse than, ‘traditional’ bullying due to the use of similar forms of “harassment,” “antagonizing,” “tormenting,” and ‘threatening’ through online platforms. Some young people believed that the physical distance between the victim and the bully is an important aspect of cyber-bullying:

“I think it’s worse because people find it easier to abuse someone when not face to face.” (Male, study 2).

“I think it could be worse, because lots of other people can get involved, whereas when it’s physical bullying it’s normally just between one or two or a smaller group, things could escalate too because especially Facebook, they’ve got potential to escalate.” (Female, study 2).

Other participants in study two spoke about bullying at school which transfers to an online platform highlighting no “escape” for some. In addition, it was made clearer that some young people considered distancing in relation to bullying and how this influences perceptions of severity:

“…when there’s an argument it can continue when you’re not at school or whatever and they can continue it over Facebook and everyone can see it then other people get involved.” (Female, study 2).

“I was cyber-bullied on Facebook, because someone put several hurtful comments in response to my status updates and profile pictures. This actually was extended into school by the bully…” (Male, study 2).

Impact of Bullying on Victim

Although bullying behaviors were a primary consideration of young people’s understanding of bullying, many considered the consequences associated with bullying and in particular, the impact on mental health. In these examples, the specifics of the bullying event were irrelevant to young people and the focus was on how the behavior was received by the recipient.

In study two, young people divulged how cyber-bullying had adversely affected their ability to go to school and to socialize outside school. Indeed some young people reported the affects it had on their confidence and self-esteem:

“I developed anorexia nervosa. Although not the single cause of my illness, bullying greatly contributed to my low self-esteem which led to becoming ill.” (Female, study 2).

“It hurts people’s feelings and can even lead to committing suicide….” (Female, study 2).

Across the studies, young people who had been bullied themselves shared their individual experiences:

“….you feel insecure and it just builds up and builds up and then in the end you have no self-confidence.” (Female, study 2).

“…it was an everyday thing I just couldn’t take it and it was causing me a lot of anxiety.” (Male, study 4).

“I am different to everyone in my class …. I couldn’t take it no more I was upset all the time and it made me feel anxious and I wasn’t sleeping but spent all my time in bed being sad and unhappy.” (Male, study 4).

Young people who had not experienced bullying themselves agreed that the impact it had on a person was a large determiner of whether bullying had happened:

“When your self-confidence is severely affected and you become shy. Also when you start believing what the bullies are saying about you and start to doubt yourself.” (Female, study 3).

“…it makes the victim feel bad about themselves which mostly leads to depression and sadness.” (Male, study 2).

Further evidence around the impact of bullying was apparent in the data in terms of how relational aspects can affect perceived severity. In the case of cyber-bullying, young people suggested a sense of detachment because the bullying takes place online. Consequently, as the relational element is removed bullying becomes easier to execute:

“…because people don’t have to face them over a computer so it’s so much easier. It’s so much quicker as well cos on something like Facebook it’s not just you, you can get everyone on Facebook to help you bully that person.” (Female, study 2).

“Due to technology being cheaper, it is easier for young people to bully people in this way because they don’t believe they can be tracked.” (Male, study 2).

“The effects are the same and often the bullying can be worse as the perpetrator is unknown or can disguise their identity. Away from the eyes of teachers etc., more can be done without anyone knowing.” (Female, study 2).

Relational aspects of bullying were further highlighted with regards to how “banter” was understood, particularly with in-group bullying and how the same example can either be seen as “banter” or bullying depending on the nature of the relationship:

“…we’ve just been joking about, but it’s never been anything harsh it’s just been like having a joke. well, I haven’t done it but I’ve been in a crowd where people do it, so I don’t want to get involved just in case it started an argument.” (Female, study 3).

“But it also depends…who your groups with, for example, if I spoke to my friends from [School]… I wouldn’t like use taboo language with them because to them it may seem inappropriate and probably a bit shocked, but if I was with my friends outside of school we use taboo language, we’ll be ourselves and we’ll be comfortable with it, and if a stranger walked past and heard us obviously they’d be thinking that we’re being bullied ourselves.” (Female, study 3).

Furthermore, how individuals are perceived by others tended to influence whether they were believed or not. In study four for example, participants suggested that who the bullies were within the school might have impacted how complaints were acted upon by school officials:

“When I went to the school about it, the students said I had attacked them – all eight of them! I just realized that no one believes me….” (Female, study 4).

While in study three, a characteristic of bullying was the influence the aggressor has over the victim:

“When the victim starts to feel in danger or start to fear the other person. Consequently he or she tries to avoid the bad guy (or girl!)” (Male, study 3).

These relational and contextual issues also influenced a young person’s ability to report bullying.

Reporting Bullying

Young people were more likely to report bullying when they considered it was ‘serious’ enough. Just under half of participants in study two sought emotional/practical support if they worried about, or were affected by cyber-bullying, with most talking to their parents. In study three, young people were less likely to seek support but when they did, most went to their teachers. In study four, all participants reported bullying in school where they did not feel supported.

Fear of making the bullying worse was captured across the studies as a reason for not reporting it:

“I’m scared that if I tell then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“The bully might bully you if he finds out.” (Male, study 3).

Being able to deal with the incident themselves was also a reason for non-reporting:

“…it’s embarrassing and not necessary, my friends help me through it, adults never seem to understand.” (Female, study 2).

“I don’t tend to talk to anyone about it, I just keep it to myself and obviously that’s the worst thing you should ever do, you should never keep it to yourself, because I regret keeping it to myself to be honest….” (Female, study 3).

“…but I think I’d deal with it myself ‘cos. I was quite insecure but now I’m quite secure with myself, so I’ll sort it out myself. I think it’s just over time I’ve just sort of hardened to it.” (Male, study 3).

Most young people seeking support for bullying said they spoke to an adult but the helpfulness of this support varied. This finding is important for understanding relationships between young people and adults. Those who felt supported by their teachers for example, suggested that they took the time to listen and understood what they were telling them. They also reassured young people who in turn believed that the adult they confided in would know what to do:

“So I think the best teacher to talk to is [Miss A] and even though people are scared of her I would recommend it, because she’s a good listener and she can sense when you don’t want to talk about something, whereas the other teachers force it out of you.” (Female, study 3).

“My school has had assemblies about cyber-bullying and ways you can stop it or you can report it anonymously…. you can write your name or you can’t, it’s all up to YOU.” (Male, study 2).

Others however had a negative experience of reporting bullying and a number of reasons were provided as to why. Firstly, young people stated that adults did not believe them which made the bullying worse on some level:

“I went to the teachers a couple of times but, no, I don’t think they could do anything. I did sort of go three times and it still kept on going, so I just had to sort of deal with it and I sort of took it on the cheek….” (Male, study 3).

Secondly, young people suggested that adults did not always listen to their concerns, or in some cases did not take their concerns seriously enough:

“…I had had a really bad day with the girls so I came out and I explained all this to my head of year and how it was affecting me but instead of supporting me he put me straight into isolation.” (Male, study 4).

“I could understand them thinking I maybe got the wrong end of the stick with one incident but this was 18 months of me constantly reporting different incidents.” (Female, study 4).

“If cyber-bullying is brought to our school’s attention, usually, they expect printed proof of the situation and will take it into their own hand depending on its seriousness. However this is usually a couple of detentions. And it’s just not enough.” (Female, study 2).

Finally, some young people suggested that teachers did not always know what to do when bullying concerns were raised and consequently punished those making the complaint:

“I think I would have offered support instead of punishment to someone who was suffering with anxiety. I wouldn’t have seen anxiety as bad behavior I think that’s quite ignorant but they saw it as bad behavior.” (Male, study 4).

It is worth reiterating, that the majority of young people across the studies did not report bullying to anybody , which further underscores the contextual issues underpinning bullying and its role in enabling or disabling bullying behaviors. Some considered it was “pointless” reporting the bullying and others feared the situation would be made worse if they did:

“My school hide and say that bullying doesn’t go on cos they don’t wanna look bad for Ofsted.” (Male, study 2).

“My school is oblivious to anything that happens, many things against school rules happen beneath their eyes but they either refuse to acknowledge it or are just not paying attention so we must suffer.” (Female, study 2).

“That’s why I find that when you get bullied you’re scared of telling because either, in most cases the teacher will – oh yeah, yeah, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out and then they don’t tend to, and then they get bullied more for it.” (Female, study 3).

Young people were concerned that reporting bullying would have a negative impact on their friendship groups. Some were anxious about disrupting the status quo within:

“I think everyone would talk about me behind my back and say I was mean and everyone would hate me.” (Female, study 3).

Others expressed concern about the potential vulnerability they were likely to experience if they raised concerns of bullying:

“I was worried it might affect my other friendships.”(Boy, study 2).

“I’m scared that if I tell, then the bullying will still go on and they will do more.” (Female, study 3).

“….because they might tell off the bullies and then the bullies will like get back at you.” (Female, study 3).

These findings underscore the importance of contextual and relational factors in understanding bullying from the perspectives of young people and how these factors influence a young person’s ability or willingness to report bullying.

Finally one young person who had self-excluded from school due to severe bullying suggested that schools:

“…need to be looking out for their students’ mental wellbeing – not only be there to teach them but to support and mentor them. Keep them safe really… I missed out on about three years of socializing outside of school because I just couldn’t do it. I think it’s important that students are encouraged to stand up for each other.” (Female, study 4).

The studies presented in this paper illustrate the multitude of perceptions underpinning young people’s understandings of what constitutes bullying, both in terms of the behavior and also the impact that this behavior has on an individual. In turn, the ambiguity of what constitutes bullying had an impact on a young person’s ability to seek support. Discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups are shown, highlighting the fluid and changing roles that occur within a bullying situation. Findings from quantitative studies have demonstrated the differing perceptions of bullying by adults and young people (see for example Smith et al., 2002 ; Vaillancourt et al., 2008 ; Maunder et al., 2010 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ). However, by combining findings from participatory research, new understandings of the relational and contextual factors important to young people come to the fore.

Young people participating in these four studies had unique knowledge and experiences of bullying and the social interactions of other young people in their schools and wider friendship groups. The underpinning participatory design enabled me to work alongside young people to analyze and understand their unique perspectives of bullying in more detail. The research teams were therefore able to construct meaning together, based not entirely on our own assumptions and ideologies, but including the viewpoint of the wider research participant group ( Thomson and Gunter, 2008 ). Together, through the process of co-constructing bullying knowledge, we were able to build on what is already known in this field and contribute to the view that bullying is socially constructed through the experiences of young people and the groups they occupy ( Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ).

With regards to understanding what bullying is, the findings from these studies corroborate those of the wider literature from both paradigms of inquiry (for example Naylor et al., 2001 ; Canty et al., 2016 ); that being the discrepancies in definitions between adults and young people and also between young people themselves. Yet, findings here suggest that young people’s bullying definitions are contextually and relationally contingent. With the exception of physical bullying, young people did not differentiate between direct or indirect behaviors, instead they tended to agree that other contextual and relational factors played a role in deciding if particular behaviors were bullying (or not). The participatory research design enabled reflection and further investigation of the ideas that were particularly important to young people such as repetition and intentionality. Repetition was generally seen as being indicative of bullying being “serious,” and therefore more likely to be reported, and without repetition, a level of normality was perceived. This finding contradicts some work on bullying definitions, Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) for example found that regardless of the role played by young people in a bullying episode (victim, aggressor or witness), the criteria of ‘repetition’ was not important in how they defined bullying.

Relational factors underpinning young people’s perception of bullying and indeed it’s “seriousness” were further reflected in their willingness or otherwise to report it. Fear of disrupting the status quo of the wider friendship group, potentially leading to their own exclusion from the group, was raised as a concern by young people. Some were concerned their friends would not support them if they reported bullying, while others feared further retaliation as a result. Friendship groups have been identified as a source of support for those who have experienced bullying and as a protective factor against further bullying ( Allen, 2014 ). Although participants did not suggest their friendship groups are unsupportive it is possible that group dynamics underscore seeking (or not) support for bullying. Other literature has described such practices as evidence of a power imbalance ( Olweus, 1995 ; Cuadrado-Gordillo, 2012 ) but young people in these studies did not describe these unequal relationships in this way and instead focused on the outcomes and impacts of bullying. Indeed Cuadrado-Gordillo (2012) also found that young people in their quantitative study did not consider “power imbalance” in their understanding of bullying and were more likely to consider intention. This paper, however, underscores the relational aspects of definitions of bullying and, how the dynamics of young people’s friendships can shift what is understood as bullying or not. Without such nuances, some behaviors may be overlooked as bullying, whereas other more obvious behaviors draw further attention. This paper also shows that contextual issues such as support structures can shift how young people see bullying. Contextual factors were evident across the four studies through the recognition of bullying being enabled or disabled by institutional factors, including a school’s ability to respond appropriately to bullying concerns. Young people suggested that schools could be influenced by bullies, perceiving them as non-threatening and consequently not dealing appropriately with the situation. Indeed some young people reported that their schools placed the onus on them as victims to change, consequently placing the “blame” on victims instead. These findings raise questions about who young people feel able to confide in about bullying as well as issues around training and teacher preparedness to deal with bullying in schools. Evidenced in these four studies, is that young people feel somewhat disconnected from adults when they have bullying concerns. Those who did report bullying, identified particular individuals they trusted and knew would support them. Novick and Isaacs (2010) identified teachers who young people felt comfortable in approaching to report bullying and described them as “most active, engaged and responsive.” (p. 291). The bullying literature suggests that as young people get older they are more likely to confide in friends than adults ( Moore and Maclean, 2012 ; Allen, 2014 ). However, findings from this paper indicate that although fewer young people reported bullying, those who did confided in an adult. Young people have identified that a variety of supports are required to tackle bullying and that adults need to listen and work with them so nuanced bullying behaviors are not recognized as “normal” behaviors. Within the data presented in this paper, “banter” was portrayed as “normal” behavior. Young people did not specify what behaviors they regarded as “banter,” but suggested that when banter is repeated and intentional the lines are blurred about what is bullying and what is banter.

Exploring bullying nuances in this paper, was enhanced by the involvement of young people in the research process who had a unique “insider” perspective about what it is like to be a young person now and how bullying is currently affecting young people. In studies one and four, young people were “active respondents” ( Bragg and Fielding, 2005 ) and provided adults with their own unique perspectives on bullying. It could be argued that study one did not involve the participation of young people. However, this study informed the basis of the subsequent studies due to the discrepancies noted in the literature about how bullying is understood between adults and young people, as well as the lack of young people’s voice and opportunity to participate in the reviewed research. Accordingly, young people’s data as “active respondents” informed adult understanding and led to future work involving more active research engagement from other young people. Participation in study four provided an opportunity for young people to contribute to future participatory research based on lived experiences as well as informing policy makers of the effects bullying has on the lives of young people ( O’Brien, 2017 ). In studies two and three, young people were involved further along Bragg and Fielding (2005) continuum as “co-researchers” and “students as researchers” with these roles shifting and moving dependent on the context of the project at the time ( O’Brien et al., 2018a ). These young researchers brought unique knowledge to the projects ( Bradbury-Jones et al., 2018 ) that could not be accessed elsewhere. Perspectives offered by the young researchers supported adults in understanding more about traditional and cyber-bullying from their perspectives. Furthermore, this knowledge can be added to other, quantitative studies to further understand why bullying happens alongside bullying prevalence, risk and protective factors, and negative outcomes.

Findings from the four studies offer an alternative perspective to how bullying is understood by young people. Complexities in defining bullying have been further uncovered as understanding is informed by individual factors, as well as wider social and relational contexts ( Horton, 2011 ; Schott and Sondergaard, 2014 ). This has implications for the type of support young people require. This paper highlights how definitions of bullying shift in response to relational and contextual aspects deemed important to young people. Because of this, further nuances were uncovered through the research process itself as the respective studies showed discrepancies in bullying perceptions within and between young people’s groups.

These understandings can act as a starting point for young people and adults to collaborate in research which seeks to understand bullying and the context to which it occurs. Furthermore, such collaborations enable adults to theorize and understand the complexities associated with bullying from the perspective of those at the center. There is a need for additional participatory research projects involving such collaborations where adults and young people can learn from each other as well as combining findings from different methodologies to enable a more comprehensive picture of the issues for young people to emerge. Further research is needed to unravel the complexities of bullying among and between young people, specifically in relation to the contextual and relational factors underscoring perceptions of bullying.

Data Availability

Ethics statement.

Ethical approval was granted for all four studies from the Faculty of Health, Education, Medicine and Social Care at the Anglia Ruskin University. The research was conducted on the premise of Gillick competency meaning that young people (in these studies over the age of 12 years) could consent for themselves to participate. Parents/carers were aware the study was happening and received information sheets explaining the process.

Author Contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr. Grace Spencer, Ruskin Fellow at the Anglia Ruskin University for providing the critical read of this manuscript and offering constructive feedback. I would also like to thank the two independent reviewers for their feedback on the drafts of this manuscript.

Funding. These four studies were conducted at the Anglia Ruskin University. Study one was part of a wider masters degree funded by the Anglia Ruskin University, Study two was funded by a group of young people convened by the National Children’s Bureau with funding from the Wellcome Trust (United Kingdom). Study three was a wider Doctoral study funded by the Anglia Ruskin University and Study four was also funded by the Anglia Ruskin University.

1 These findings focus on perceptions and data from the young people in the four studies. For a full discussion on adult perceptions please refer to the individual studies.

• Alderson P. (2007). Competent children? Minors’ consent to health care treatment and research. Soc. Sci. Med. 65 2272–2283. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen M. (2014). Local Action on Health Inequalities: Building Children and Young People’s Resilience in Schools , London: Public Health England. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beresford P. (2006). Making the connections with direct experience: from the western front to user-controlled research. Educ. Action Res. 14 161–170. [ Google Scholar ]
• Black S., Weinles D., Washington E. (2010). Victim strategies to stop bullying. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 8 138–147. 10.1177/1541204009349401 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bland D., Atweh B. (2007). Students as researchers: engaging students’ voices in PAR. Educ. Action Res. 15 337–349. 10.1080/09650790701514259 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulton M. J., Flemington I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school Pupils’ involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying. Sch. Psychol. Int. 17 331–345. 10.1177/0143034396174003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury-Jones C., Isham L., Taylor J. (2018). The complexities and contradictions in participatory research with vulnerable children and young people: a qualitative systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 215 80–91. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.08.038 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bragg S., Fielding M. (2005). “ It’s an equal thing. It’s about achieving together: student voices and the possibility of a radical collegiality ,” in Improving Schools Through Collaborative Enquiry , eds Street H., Temperley J. (London: Continuum; ), 105–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Braun V., Clarke V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 77–101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Canty J., Stubbe M., Steers D., Collings S. (2016). The trouble with bullying–deconstructing the conventional definition of bullying for a child-centred investigation into Children’s use of social media. Child. Soc. 30 48–58. 10.1111/chso.12103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coyne I. (2010). Research with children and young people: the issue of parental (proxy) consent. Child. Soc. 24 227–237. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cuadrado-Gordillo I. (2012). Repetition, power imbalance, and intentionality: do these criteria conform to teenagers’ perception of bullying? A role-based analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 27 1889–1910. 10.1177/0886260511431436 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davey C. (2011). Evaluation of the PEAR Project. London: National Children’s Bureau. [ Google Scholar ]
• deLara E. W. (2012). Why adolescents Don’t disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. J. Sch. Violence 11 288–305. 10.1080/15388220.2012.705931 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eriksen I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educ. Res. 60 157–170. 10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage D. L. (2018). Understanding the complexity of school bully involvement. Chautauqua J. 2 : 20 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Forsberg C., Wood L., Smith J., Varjas K., Meyers J., Jungert T., et al. (2018). Students’ views of factors affecting their bystander behaviors in response to school bullying: a cross-collaborative conceptual qualitative analysis. Res. Pap. Educ. 33 127–142. 10.1080/02671522.2016.1271001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox R. (2013). Resisting participation: critiquing participatory research methodologies with young people. J. Youth Stud. 16 986–999. 10.1080/13676261.2013.815698 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Griffin R. S., Gross A. M. (2004). Childhood bullying: current empirical findings and future directions for research. Aggr. Violent Behav. 9 379–400. 10.1016/s1359-1789(03)00033-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guerin S., Hennessy E. (2002). Pupils’ definitions of bullying. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 17 249–261. 10.1007/bf03173535 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horton P. (2011). School bullying and social and moral orders. Child. Soc. 25 268–277. 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00377.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang F. L., Cornell D. G. (2015). The impact of definition and question order on the prevalence of bullying victimization using student self-reports. Psychol. Assess. 27 : 1484 . 10.1037/pas0000149 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• James A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. Am. Anthropol. 109 261–272. 10.1525/aa.2007.109.2.261 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones A. (2004). “ Involving children and yong people as researchers ,” in Doing Research with Children and Young People , eds Fraser S., Lewis V., Ding S., Kellett M., Robinson C. (London: Sage Publications; ), 113–130. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kellett M. (2010). Small shoes, Big Steps! Empowering children as active researchers. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 46 195–203. 10.1007/s10464-010-9324-y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• La Fontaine J. (1991). Bullying: The Child’s View – an Analysis of Telephone Calls to ChildLIne about Bullying. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lambert V., Glacken M. (2011). Engaging with children in research: theoretical and practical implications of negotiating informed consent/assent. Nurs. Ethics 18 781–801. 10.1177/0969733011401122 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee C. (2006). Exploring teachers’ definitions of bullying. Emot. Behav. Diffic. 11 61–75. 10.1080/13632750500393342 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maunder R. E., Crafter S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggr. Violent Behav. 38 13–20. 10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maunder R. E., Harrop A., Tattersall A. J. (2010). Pupil and staff perceptions of bullying in secondary schools: comparing behavioural definitions and their perceived seriousness. Educ. Res. 52 263–282. 10.1080/00131881.2010.504062 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore S., Maclean R. (2012). Victimization, friendship and resilience: crossing the land in-between. Pastor. Care Educ. 30 147–163. 10.1080/02643944.2012.679956 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naylor P., Cowie H., del Rey R. (2001). Coping strategies of secondary school children in response to being bullied. Child Psychol. Psychiatry Rev. 6 114–120. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Novick R. M., Isaacs J. (2010). Telling is compelling: the impact of students reports of bullying on teacher intervention. Educ. Psychol. 30 283–296. 10.1080/01443410903573123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N. (2009). Secondary school teachers’ and pupils’ definitions of bullying in the UK: a systematic review. Evid. Policy 5 399–426. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N. (2014). “I Didn’t Want to be Known as a Snitch”: Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private day and Boarding School. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition. Suffolk: University Campus Suffolk, 86–96. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N. (2016). To ‘Snitch’ or Not to ‘Snitch’? Using PAR to Explore Bullying in a Private Day and Boarding School . Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/700970/ (accessed September 20, 2018). [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N. (2017). An Exploratory Study of Bullied Young People’s Self-Exclusion from School. Evidence: Presented at Meetings of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying 2011-2016. Project Report. All Party Parliamentary Group on Bullying. Available at: http://arro.anglia.ac.uk/id/eprint/702024 (accessed September 20, 2018). [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Moules T. (2007). So round the spiral again: a reflective participatory research project with children and young people. Educ. Action Res. J. 15 385–402. 10.1080/09650790701514382 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Moules T. (2010). The Impact of Cyber-Bullying on Young People’s Mental Health. Project Report. Chelmsford: Anglia Ruskin University. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Moules T. (2013). Not sticks and stones but tweets and texts: findings from a national cyberbullying project. Pastor. Care Educ. 31 53–65. 10.1080/02643944.2012.747553 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Moules T., Munn-Giddings C. (2018a). “ Negotiating the research space between young people and adults in a PAR study exploring school bullying ,” in Reciprocal Relationships and Well-Being: Implications for Social Work and Social Policy , eds Torronen M., Munn-Giddings C., Tarkiainen L. (Oxon: Routledge; ), 160–175. 10.4324/9781315628363-11 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Munn-Giddings C., Moules T. (2018b). The repercussions of reporting bullying: some experiences of students at an independent secondary school. Pastor. Care Educ. 36 29–43. 10.1080/02643944.2017.1422004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien N., Munn-Giddings C., Moules T. (2018c). The Ethics of Involving Young People Directly in the Research Process. Childhood Remixed. Conference Edition , 115–128. Available at: www.uos.ac.uk/content/centre-for-study-children-childhood (accessed May 2018). [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliver C., Candappa M. (2007). Bullying and the politics of ‘telling’. Oxford Rev. Educ. 33 71–86. 10.1080/03054980601094594 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus D. (1995). Bullying or peer abuse at school: facts and intervention. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4 196–200. 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772640 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ozer E. J., Wright D. (2012). Beyond school spirit: the effects of youth-led participatory action research in two urban high schools. J. Res. Adolesc. 22 267–283. 10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00780.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Parsons S., Abbott C., McKnight L., Davies C. (2015). High risk yet invisible: conflicting narratives on social research involving children and young people, and the role of research ethics committees. Br. Educ. Res. J. 41 709–729. 10.1002/berj.3160 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Patton D. U., Hong J. S., Patel S., Kral M. J. (2017). A systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on school bullying and victimization. Trauma Violence Abuse 18 3–16. 10.1177/1524838015588502 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Popay J., Roberts H., Sowden A., Petticrew M., Arai L., Rodgers M., et al. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Eur. Soc. Res. Council Methods Program. 10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schott R. M., Sondergaard D. M. (2014). “ Introduction: new approaches to school bullying ,” in School Bullying: New Theories in Context , eds Schott R. M., Sondergaard D. M. (Massachusetts, MA: Cambridge University Press; ), 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Skrzypiec G., Slee P., Murray-Harvey R., Pereira B. (2011). School bullying by one or more ways: does it matter and how do students cope? Sch. Psychol. Int. 32 288–311. 10.1177/0143034311402308 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith P. K., Cowie H., Olafsson R. F., Liefooghe A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Dev. 73 1119–1133. 10.1111/1467-8624.00461 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spears B., Taddeo C., Collin P., Swist T., Razzell M., Borbone V., et al. (2016). Safe and Well Online: Learnings from Four Social Marketing Campaigns for Youth Wellbeing. Available at: https://researchdirect.westernsydney.edu.au/islandora/object/uws:36405/datastream/PDF/view (accessed July 1, 2019). [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoudt B. G. (2009). The role of language & discourse in the investigation of privilege: using participatory action research to discuss theory. Dev. Methodol. Interrupt. Power Urban Rev. 41 7–28. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomson P., Gunter H. (2008). Researching Bullying with students: a lens on everyday life in an ‘innovative school’. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 12 185–200. 10.1080/13603110600855713 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tisdall E. K. M., Punch S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Child. Geogr. 10 249–264. 10.1080/14733285.2012.693376 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Available at: http://www.unicef.org.uk/Documents/Publication-pdfs/UNCRC_PRESS2009 10web.pdf (accessed January 19, 2014). [ Google Scholar ]
• Vaillancourt T., McDougall P., Hymel S., Krygsman A., Miller J., Stiver K., et al. (2008). Bullying: are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing? Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32 486–495. 10.1177/0165025408095553 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Questions Answered

• Publications
• Students with Disabilities
• Spanish - Recursos Acerca de Bullying
• Cyberbullying
• Sites for Kids and Teens
• Elementary School Education
• Elementary School Activities
• Middle / High School Education
• Middle / High School Activities
• All In – Year-long Teacher Toolkit
• Show Your Support
• Student Activity Kit
• Share Information
• PACERTalks About Bullying Series
• Carmen's Corner Series
• Music Videos
• Student Created Videos
• What Should You Do?
• Los Angeles Gala
• Take The Pledge
• Cartoon Network, Redraw Your World Without Bullying
• Cartoon Network, Kids Take On Bullying
• Build Community Kit
• Students With Solutions
• The Unity Awards
• Stories of Hope and Resilience
• I Care Because …
• Friends of PACER’s Run Walk Roll
• Definition, Impact and Roles
• Laws and Policy
• Helping Your Child
• Working with the School
• Mobile and Online Safety
• All Products
• Unity Day T-shirt
• Unity Day Posters
• Classroom 5-Poster Series
• Beyond Sticks and Stones
• Instagram Poster Series
• Create A World Without Bullying Resource kit

Bullying 101

How is bullying defined? – Bullying is when someone aggressively uses their “power” to target another individual with repeated, unwanted words or actions. Those targeted are hurt either physically or emotionally and have a hard time stopping what is happening to them.

Students often describe bullying as when “someone makes you feel less about who you are as a person.”

Conflict vs. Bullying – Bullying is different from conflict.

• Conflict is a disagreement or argument in which both sides express their views.
• Bullying is negative behavior directed by someone exerting power and control over another person.

Bullying is done with a goal to hurt, harm, or humiliate. With bullying, there is often a power imbalance between those involved, with power defined as elevated social status, being physically larger, or as part of a group against an individual. Students who bully perceive their target as vulnerable in some way and often find satisfaction in harming them.

In normal conflict, children self-monitor their behavior. They read cues to know if lines are crossed, and then modify their behavior in response. Children guided by empathy usually realize they have hurt someone and will want to stop their negative behavior. On the other hand, children intending to cause harm and whose behavior goes beyond normal conflict will continue their behavior even when they know it's hurting someone.

What is the difference between bullying and harassment? – Bullying and harassment are often used interchangeably when talking about hurtful or harmful behavior. They are very similar, but in terms of definition, there is an important difference.

• power and control
• actions that hurt or harm another person physically or emotionally
• an imbalance of power between the target and the individual demonstrating the negative behavior
• the target having difficulty stopping the action directed at them

The distinction between bullying and harassment is that when the bullying behavior directed at the target is also based on a protected class, that behavior is then defined as harassment. Protected classes include race, color, religion, sex, age, disability and national origin.

Why use the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying”? – PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center uses the term “bullying prevention” instead of “anti-bullying” to place the emphasis on a proactive approach and philosophy, framing bullying as an issue to which there is a solution. While the use of “anti” does appropriately indicate the concept of being against bullying, the focus on “prevention” recognizes that change is ultimately about shifting behavior and attitudes, which can happen through the positive approach of education, awareness, and action.

How is “direct bullying” different from “indirect bullying”?

Direct bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates and is overt, obvious, and apparent to anyone witnessing it. The actions and words are easy to identify, the identity of the person bullying is usually known, and the acts are directed toward the person being bullied – they know about the bullying as it is happening.

Indirect bullying: Behavior that hurts, harms, or humiliates, which is often covert, subtle, and not always immediately acknowledged as bullying. The words and actions can be harder to identify, can be done anonymously and discreetly, and the target might not find out about the bullying until long after it has happened.

Why is prevention important?

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” “A stitch in time saves nine.” These sayings are familiar to many people, but how many of us have ever thought about how we could prevent a big problem like bullying or how our individual efforts could make a difference? Have you ever wondered what changes would need to occur in our daily lives to prevent bullying or reduce the chance that it will happen? If we only think or act when bullying is already happening, we are then solely focused on intervention and we may never see the end of this behavior. Promoting and modeling positive social behaviors before negative outcomes like bullying occur is a good way to create safer, healthier schools and communities for all children.

Why do we use “target” vs. “victim” and “child who bullies” vs. “bully” – You’ve likely heard statements such as “My child is a victim of bullying” or “That student is a bully.” Though these phrases are commonly used, are they the best terms to describe a child’s behavior and actions?

When referring to those involved in bullying situations, avoid stereotyping them into categories. Focus on behavior, not on labels.

• Instead of “bullying victim,” replace with the phrase “he’s a target of bullying.” This shows that the child is not powerless, and that with support and education they can change what’s happening to them.
• Instead of “she’s a bully” use instead, “she’s someone who bullies.” This shows that bullying is a part of who she is, but with support and education she can make changes in her behavior.

Does bullying happen more often than adults think? – There are many different types of bullying a student may experience, such as physical, verbal, emotional, or cyber. While all forms are equally hurtful, many behaviors harm students emotionally rather than physically, or happen in online environments versus the physical world — making it harder for adults to identify.

Physical bullying is often easier for adults to detect because the behavior is overt or signs are left behind (bruises, broken bones, damaged belongings). However, the words, gossip, rumors, or shared secrets that constitute verbal and social bullying don’t leave a physical trail of the emotional pain.

Bullying in online environments usually happens outside of adults’ view as well. While it often leaves behind an electronic trail of hurtful words or images, adults don’t know it is happening unless the student tells someone or an adult is monitoring their online activity.

What Are Some Common Misconceptions about Bullying? – In spite of the significant impact that bullying can have on a target, it often continues to be viewed as acceptable behavior. There are many misconceptions that adults may have about bullying, all of which can lead to minimizing the behavior. Learn more about responses such as “boys will be boys” or “it’s only teasing.”

Helpful Information for Adults

Why is it important for students to advocate for themselves and how can adults help them learn those skills? – Speaking up for oneself, expressing needs, and taking action are essential self-advocacy tools for youth of all ages. When children know that there are options for regaining control or influencing a difficult situation, they gain the resilience to move through the obstacles that life brings. Children who actively participate in learning self-advocacy skills are better prepared to resolve problems themselves and understand when a problem requires adult help. Whether it’s a disagreement with a friend or a serious situation like bullying, teaching self-advocacy can reinforce a child’s understanding of how they create change in their world.

What are some strategies to reinforce messages of kindness, acceptance, and inclusion at a young age? – Positive adult role modeling, mentoring, and age-appropriate approaches to kindness, acceptance, and inclusion can make a big impact on how children treat each other in the classroom, on the playground, at home, and in the community. Young children are just learning what it means to get along, how to share toys, discovering ways to work together, and understand how their feelings and behavior affect others. Practice role-playing activities, play games, create art, explore feelings, and establish a clear set of behavioral rules. These strategies reinforce positive relationships and behaviors, and is one of the keys to helping kids get along, which ultimately can help prevent bullying.

Bullying Prevention for Children with Disabilities: Using the IEP, 504, or Creating Your Own Plan – Using an IEP, 504 Plan, or constructing a plan for bullying prevention with professionals at school for students with disabilities can help create a safer and healthier learning environment for all students.”

How does bullying impact students’ health? – Do you remember hearing “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?”

Research shows that this age-old saying simply isn’t true. Often, the physical impact of bullying (the “sticks and stones”) is easy to recognize, such as a child getting up after being pushed, damaged personal items, or having torn clothing.

However, bullying often impacts our children in ways that aren’t so obvious. While words don’t physically injure, they do still hurt, and can cause emotional harm. Verbal and emotional bullying, such as teasing and social exclusion, as well as physical bullying, have the potential to negatively impact a student’s overall health, along with their sense of well-being.

What are some strategies for adults to redirect bullying behavior? – When a child is bullying others, it’s important that parents and educators take action. It is equally important for adults to recognize that bullying is about behavior, and they should choose responses that acknowledge behavior can be changed. Reframing the focus from labeling a child as a “bully” to referring to them as a “child with bullying behavior” recognizes that there is capacity for change. While children who are bullying others should be given appropriate consequences for their behavior, adults should be talking with their children to learn why they are bullying others. Children need to understand the impact their behavior has on others and realize the hurt they are causing. With adult guidance, redirecting bullying behavior toward an understanding of differences, as well as the practices of kindness and inclusion, are good strategies for reshaping a child’s behavior.

My child is being bullied at school. How can I communicate effectively with the school to make sure the bullying doesn’t continue? – When your child is the target of bullying, a parent’s first response is often an emotional one, followed by a sense of wanting to know the most effective, action-oriented response. Building positive relationships between the school, parents, and students will ensure that a plan and timeline of action can be quickly set in place to prevent further bullying.

How do I start a conversation about cyberbullying with my child? – The internet is the newest place for children and teens to communicate and share moments with their peers. While it can be a positive place for students to interact, the rise of technology has also led to a new and serious form of bullying, known as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as the use of technology to send or share mean, threatening, or embarrassing messages or images to or about someone. It might be in a text, email, message, on social media, or in a post online. Just as it’s important to talk with your child about bullying, it’s important to discuss cyberbullying as soon as your child starts to interact online. Discuss what information is and isn’t appropriate to share online, as well as establishing cyber rules together, such as what sites your child will be allowed to use and hours of usage. During this conversation, explain that if something hurtful is shared online (via words, images, videos, etc.), it counts as cyberbullying, and it’s important that you know about it. Together, you can strategize a plan to respond to the cyberbullying and keep kids safe online.

What should parents do when a team culture of teasing leads to bullying? – Merriam-Webster dictionary defines teasing as , “Making fun of or disturbing or annoying with persistent irritating or provoking behavior, especially in a petty or mischievous way .” Many children participate in teasing, both as the one exhibiting the behavior and the one being teased. Teasing, in and of itself, is not considered bullying. However, when the behavior meets distinguishing hallmarks, including no longer being fun or funny to the intended target, causing emotional distress, being repeated, or continuing despite the target’s desire for it to stop, it then reaches the level of bullying. When a child is on a team in which the coach or teammates view bullying behavior as “just teasing” or dismiss it as “kids being kids,” parents should first ensure that their child feels supported, and next address the concern directly with the coach or adult leaders by examining how the culture of teasing impacts team members.

How Do You Help Your Child Recognize the Signs of Bullying? – Children may not always realize that they are being bullied. They might think it is bullying only if they are being physically hurt; they might believe the other child is joking; or they may not understand the subtle social norms and cues. Children can benefit from a definition of the differences between friendly behavior and bullying behavior. The basic rule, which is not a legal or comprehensive definition: Let children know bullying is when someone is being hurt either by words or actions on purpose, usually more than once, feels bad because of it, and has a hard time stopping what is happening to them. Parents can prepare themselves to talk with their children by considering how they are going to respond to their child’s questions and emotions. They can also decide what information they would like to give their child about bullying.

Why Does Inclusion Matter for Bullying Prevention? – Inclusion helps foster a sense of “belonging” for all and increases the possibility that students will find meaningful connections among their peers, as well as support when they need it. When all are included and valued in the life of a community, bullying is less likely to occur.

Helpful Information for Youth

Can a friend be bullying me? – Friends will sometimes have bad days. Friends will sometimes disagree. Friends will sometimes hurt each other's feelings, have an argument, or simply need time away from one another. This is normal and can happen in any friendship, no matter how close. If you are experiencing treatment from a friend that hurts you and you have asked that friend to stop, but it still continues, then that is not friendship. That behavior could be bullying. Friendship behaviors do not include hurting someone on purpose or continually being mean even when asked to stop. A friend will change or be remorseful for her behavior if she finds out she's hurting you. If you aren't certain if what is happening is part of a normal friendship or if it is bullying, talk to an adult you trust and get help sorting out the relationship. And yes, it is okay (and the right thing to do) to ask for help.

How does peer pressure impact bullying behavior? – Peer pressure occurs when a peer group or individual encourages others to change their attitudes, values, or behaviors to conform to those of the influencing group or individual.

Peer pressure can impact bullying behavior both in positive and negative ways. For example, the influence can have negative effects if a peer group’s bullying behavior encourages others to laugh at someone. It can also be negative when the group views other individuals as not worthy to be part of their group. The impact of negative peer pressure can create environments in which individuals are intimidated to speak out on behalf of someone being hurt or harmed.

Peer pressure can also be positive and healthy. For example, when the peer group encourages kind and inclusive behavior, such as inviting others to join them at the lunch table or letting someone know that they care what is happening to them. The action of peers encouraging each other to reach out to those who are struggling can have a positive impact on the group and other individuals who want to speak out against bullying.

For students: What if you told an adult and it wasn’t helpful? – Have you told someone about being bullied and nothing has changed? Don’t give up! Did you know that you have the legal right to be safe at school? If the bullying continues even after you told an adult, know that there are laws designed to protect you (find your state law or policy at StopBullying.gov). It is very important for students to reach out to another trusted adult and ask for help again. This adult can be a parent, a teacher, a coach, or anyone from the community. Let them know that you need their help and that you wouldn’t be coming to them if you could fix the situation on your own.

National Office:

8161 Normandale Blvd. | Minneapolis, MN 55437

Los Angeles Area Office:

80 E. Hillcrest Drive, #203 | Thousand Oaks, CA 91360

Founded in 2006, PACER’s National Bullying Prevention Center actively leads social change to prevent childhood bullying, so that all youth are safe and supported in their schools, communities, and online.

[email protected]

• In The News
• History and Impact
• Press Releases

Visit our other sites

• KidsAgainstBullying.org
• TeensAgainstBullying.org

©2023 PACER Center, Inc.

About Bullying

Narrow the topic.

• Articles & Videos
• MLA Citation This link opens in a new window
• APA Citation This link opens in a new window

• What excuses do offenders make for bullying someone?
• What are personality factors that contribute to bullying?
• Does bullying differ based on gender?
• What are the various types of bullying?
• Which strategies and resources are used to deal with bullying?
• Can bullying lead to school shootings?
• Can bullying have a lasting effect?
• Do bullies outgrow their behavior?
• Is bullying a problem in the workplace?
• How can cyber bullying be prevented?
• How are schools legally liable, if they fail to protect students from bullying?
• What are the legal consequences of bullying?
• When does bullying become a hate crime?
• Next: Library Resources >>
• Last Updated: Feb 6, 2024 11:38 AM
• URL: https://libguides.broward.edu/Bullying

• Young Children
• People with Disabilities
• Organizations
• 30-Skills Coaching Handbook
• Safety Signals eBook
• Translated Resources
• Libros en Español
• Safety Comics
• Social Stories
• Teaching Books
• Training Manuals
• Parent Resources
• Sobre Nosotros
• Áreas de Especialización
• Vídeos en Español
• Español Blog
• Recursos Educativos
• Mission & Values
• Annual Report
• US & Intl Locations
• Social Media
• Permission to Use Info

Bullying – Common Questions and Answers

English | Español

Author | Permission to Use Info | Print PDF

FAQs: Answers to Common Questions about Bullying

What is bullying.

Bullying is when a person or group deliberately tries to make someone else feel upset, scared, or ashamed. People often bully others who have any difference of behavior, appearance, culture, race, class, ability, or identity.

The technical definition of bullying is, “a repeated oppression, psychological or physical, of a less powerful person by a more powerful person or group of persons.” Bullying is different from aggression between people of equal power. However, someone can have less power than others for many reasons – being shy; being different in any way; lacking confidence; having problems at home; having a disability; being of a minority race or religion; being a high achiever; or lacking physical strength. In addition, even one unresolved incident of feeling personally attacked can cause lasting upset even if it does not fit the technical definition of bullying.

Bullying takes many different forms, including: physical threats or violence; name-calling and teasing; mocking; shunning and ostracism; and social attacks on someone’s reputation. People can bully others directly, in person; indirectly, such as by gossiping or ‘badmouthing’ by voice to others; or through any form of communication technology, including talking on the phone, writing, texting, emailing, recording, and in gaming environments. Bullying behavior occurs in schools, sports, youth groups, work places, social groups, recreational camps, senior centers, and online activities. Bullying can happen anywhere people gather, either in the real world or the virtual world. Bullying takes place between people of all ages, identities, and walks of life.

Young people who are being bullied are especially likely to feel trapped and alone because they usually don’t have a choice about where they live, go to school, or play.

Bullying seems to be prevalent everywhere. Can it be stopped, or even better, prevented?

Most harm caused by bullying is PREVENTABLE!

Our article Face Bullying with Confidence: 8 Kidpower skills we can use right away have helped to prepare countless people of all ages and abilities to prevent and stop bullying. Whether you are a parent, educator, or other caring adult, you can coach young people to practice these bullying prevention skills to protect them from most bullying, increase their confidence, and help them develop positive peer relationships . Whether you are a parent, educator, or other caring adult, when you are coaching someone to practice safety skills, this individual is your student and you are their teacher.

Bullying: What Adults Need to Know and Do to Keep Kids Safe

Learn how to use and teach Kidpower self-protection skills and strategies to protect children and teens from bullying at school, home, online social media and gaming, and out in your community. Learn More | Buy on Amazon | Buy Digitally Your Amazon purchases help Kidpower!

Kidpower Child Protection Advocate Workbook

Protect young people from bullying, abuse, violence and other maltreatment through Kidpower’s  intervention, advocacy, and ‘People Safety’ skills for professionals, parents, volunteers, and other caring adults Learn More | Buy on Amazon Your Amazon purchases help Kidpower!

Kidpower Children’s Safety Comics Color Edition

Now in color! This book answers the question, “How do I teach my kids to be safe with people without scaring them?” Have fun sharing the social stories together with your kids, and they’ll be learning powerful skills. Young children will ask you to read it again and again! Learn More   |  Buy on Amazon | Buy Digitally Your Amazon purchases help Kidpower!

Stop Bullying by Taking Charge of Safety (Book 6 of 6)

Book 6 of 6 in our Kidpower Teaching Book Series, designed to make it easy and fun for adults to use our curriculum with their classes, programs, and families, focuses on strategies that can help stop bullying online and in person. Skills include ways to protect themselves, to stay in charge of their own behavior, and to advocate for the safety of other kids. Learn More | Buy on Amazon Your Amazon purchases help Kidpower!

Doing Right by Our Kids

The #1 best-selling guide to Child Safety in the #MeToo era. Practical tools for adults to take charge of the safety and well being of the young people in their care, and to address the obstacles that often get in the way. Learn More | Buy on Amazon Your Amazon purchases help Kidpower!

8 Kidpower Skills to Stop Bullying Bookmark

Download and print bookmarks to help your class, family, or friends remember 8 skills you can practice together! Also available in Spanish! Enter your name and email to download now!

See more books >>

Bullying prevention articles from our free online library.

Kidpower Founder and Executive Irene van der Zande is a master at teaching safety through stories and practices and at inspiring others to do the same. Her child protection and personal safety expertise has been featured by USA Today, CNN, Today Moms, the LA Times, and The Wall Street Journal. Publications include: cartoon-illustrated Kidpower Safety Comics and Kidpower Teaching Books curriculum; Bullying: What Adults Need to Know and Do to Keep Kids Safe ; the Relationship Safety Skills Handbook for Teens and Adults ; Earliest Teachable Moment: Personal Safety for Babies, Toddlers, and Preschoolers ; The Kidpower Book for Caring Adults: Personal Safety, Self-Protection, Confidence, and Advocacy for Young People, and the Amazon Best Seller Doing Right by Our Kids: Protecting Child Safety at All Levels .

Subscribe to our eNewsletter

Get Kidpower's latest 'People Safety' and self-defense tips and tools direct to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

By completing this form, you agree to receive emails from Kidpower and understand that you can unsubscribe at any time.