study cases of bullying in schools research

• 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

88k Accesses

13 Citations

30 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]

A Systematic Review of Bullying and Victimization Among Adolescents in India

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 07 September 2020
• Volume 3 , pages 253–269, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Niharika Thakkar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8754-6708 1 ,
• Mitch van Geel 1 &
• Paul Vedder 1  

11k Accesses

13 Citations

6 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study provides a systematic review of literature from India on traditional bullying and victimization among school-going adolescents. A search of bibliographic electronic databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed in May 2020. Thirty-seven studies were included in the review. For each study included, the following specifics were examined: (a) methodological characteristics, (b) prevalence estimates of bullying behavior, (c) forms of bullying, (d) risk factors, and (e) consequences of bullying. It was found that bullying happens in India, and some risk factors for bullying and victimization in India are typical to the Indian context. In addition, bullying in India is associated with adverse consequences for both the aggressor and the victim. Many studies on bullying from India should be interpreted cautiously because of problems with data collection processes, instrumentation, and presentation of the findings. Cross-cultural comparisons for prevalence estimates, and longitudinal studies to examine the direction of possible influence between bullying and its correlates need to be conducted, to cater to the large adolescent population of India.

Similar content being viewed by others

LGBTQI+ Youth and Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

Clare Wilson & Laura A. Cariola

Adolescent Susceptibility to Deviant Peer Pressure: Does Gender Matter?

Shelly S. McCoy, Laura M. Dimler, … Misaki N. Natsuaki

Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis

Hannah Gaffney, David P. Farrington & Maria M. Ttofi

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Bullying is an intentional and repetitive act of physical or psychological aggression, where the aggressor is more powerful than the victim (Olweus 1993 ). Meta-analytic studies have confirmed the marked prevalence of and risk factors associated with bullying perpetration and victimization among children and adolescents in school (Modecki et al. 2014 ). In a recent survey conducted in 79 countries with over 300,000 participants, 30% of the adolescent respondents reported that they had been victims of bullying in the past 30 days (Elgar et al. 2015 ). In India, research on bullying is scarce, certainly in proportion to its population size, as well as socio-cultural diversity (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ; Smith et al. 2018 ). The vast adolescent population provides ample opportunity and resources to further our understanding in the field of bullying. The disparities seen in India in terms of socio-cultural factors such as SES, religion, caste, gender, and color, which have been recognized as typical to the Indian context (Panda and Gupta 2004 ), may aid in breeding an imbalance of power, an underlying element of bullying (Olweus 1993 ). Moreover, given the diverse socio-cultural context of India, and its structural incongruence with western cultures (Charak and Koot 2015 ), literature from western countries may not be generalizable to the Indian population, thus requiring scientific attention to examine the role of these factors specifically in India (Smith et al. 2018 ).

Through the current review, we aim to provide researchers a notion of challenges that need to be addressed in future studies on bullying and victimization in India. Systematic reviews are of importance, because they closely follow a scientific and step-by-step approach, with an aim of limiting systematic errors or bias, and particularly seek to identify, evaluate, and synthesize all relevant studies to elucidate knowledge and advanced understanding of the topic at hand (Petticrew and Roberts 2008 ). The present systematic review focuses on traditional bullying and victimization among adolescents in schools in India, highlighting the following specifics: (a) methodological characteristics of included studies, (b) prevalence estimates of bullying behavior, (c) forms of bullying, (d) risk factors, and (e) consequences of bullying. Specifically, we examine the psychometric properties of the instruments adopted in the included studies from India, as well as methodological characteristics including design and data collection, sample size and sampling procedures of the included studies, and characteristics of bullying behavior distinctive to the Indian context.

Guidelines provided by Arksey and O’Malley ( 2005 ) for conducting systematic reviews were followed in the present study. A systematic search of bibliographic electronic databases PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Web of Science, and PubMed was performed in May 2020. The following terms formed the basis of the search strategy: “bullying” OR “peer victim*” OR “bullied” OR “bully” OR “school harassment*” OR “ragging” OR “school violence*” AND “India” OR “Indian” OR “Hindi”. No date limit was set for the search. Our search was not limited to published articles; book chapters, dissertations, unpublished articles, and posters were also eligible. A flow diagram of the search results is provided in Fig. 1 . Only studies that focused on bullying by peers and the resulting victimization at school were included. Articles on online bullying or cyberbullying were excluded. There were too few studies on cyberbullying in India to provide a meaningful analysis, especially when such an analysis should also deal with recent concerns about cyberbullying studies (e.g., Wolke et al. 2017 ). Non-empirical studies that did not include quantifiable data (for instance, book reviews) were excluded as we focus on only empirical research in the current review. Six studies used interviews to gather data; for instance, Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) used Olweus’s ( 1996 ) pre-tested semi-structure interview to collect data on bullying and victimization in their study. The answers to these interviews were quantified and used in statistical analyses, and therefore, we included the articles in the current review. Studies on Indian children who live outside of India were excluded. Because we focused on adolescents in school, the age of students in included studies should range between 10 and 19 years. For studies on students whose ages only partly overlapped with this intended range, we applied the rule that the average age should fall within the intended range and the lowest and highest age should be within 2 years of the intended age limits. Two studies did not provide a definitive age range of the participants included in their study (Patel et al. 2017 ; Schäfer et al. 2018 ); however, the studies indicate that the participants were from grade 8 to 10 (who are typically 12 to 15 years old), thereby qualifying for inclusion in the present review. Three studies did not provide the mean age of the participants in their study though they specify the age range of the participants (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ), and because the lower limit or higher limit of the provided age range in these three study fell within 2 years of 11–19 years old, we have included them in the present review. Eventually, 37 studies were included in the final review.

Search results for the systematic review

Methodological Characteristics of Included Studies

Design and data collection.

Of the 37 studies that were included, two were longitudinal studies (Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), two were experimental studies with pre- and post-test intervention designs (Sharma et al. 2020 ; Shinde et al. 2018 , 2020 ), whereas the others were cross-sectional studies. Seven of the 37 studies used peer-reports, 21 studies used self-reports, two studies used both self- and peer-reports (Chakrabartty and Gupta 2016 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), whereas six studies used structured or semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions to collect data on bullying and victimization (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Malhi et al. 2014 , 2015 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Munni and Malhi 2006 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ). One study used a photo-story method (Skrzypiec et al. 2015 ), where participants were invited to use a photograph or picture to illustrate their opinions or experiences of bullying.

Psychometric Properties

Psychometric properties of the scales or interviewing approaches used in the studies have been reported in 22 of the 37 studies. Four studies reported the reliability and validity of the original scale (Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Menon and Hannah-Fisher 2019 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Samanta et al. 2012 ), but did not report psychometric properties based on the Indian sample, while five studies reported neither the psychometric properties of the original scale nor its generalizability to the Indian sample (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ; Sharma et al. 2017 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ). Two studies used a scale developed by the authors of the study; however, psychometric properties were not reported (Kelly et al. 2016 ; Prakash et al. 2017 ). Four studies did not provide a clear description of the method of data collection, and the validity of the approach was not defined (Malhi et al. 2014 , 2015 ; Munni and Malhi 2006 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ). Seven studies specified that the instrument used to assess bullying behavior was an English language questionnaire, while 10 studies used either existing translations or translations created by the authors of the study, of English scales into Indian regional languages. Two studies used English instruments and orally explained the translation in Punjabi (Lee et al. 2018 ) or translated the difficult words to Hindi (Malik and Mehta 2016 ), and one study used English and Hindi language translations of the scales (Thakkar et al. 2020 ).

Of the 37 studies, 25 studies used a convenience or purposive sampling approach to recruit participants. One study used a proportionate random sampling approach to recruit participants (Kelly et al. 2016 ); one study used a two-stage cluster sampling approach (Swain et al. 2014 ); one used a multi-stage sampling design (Chakrabartty and Gupta 2016 ); six studies reported using a random sampling method for selecting either schools or participants (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ; Malik and Mehta 2016 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ), but only one of them reported how the school sample was randomized (by draw of lots; Sethi et al. 2019 ). Two studies used a randomized control design to allocate participants to experimental or control groups, where Prakash et al. ( 2017 ) used a cluster randomized control design, and the intervention study by Shinde et al. ( 2018 ) used randomized and masked groups for each of three study groups. One study used a quasi-experimental design, where of the two participating schools, one was randomly assigned to the intervention group, and the other was assigned to the control group (Sharma et al. 2020 ). Of the 37 studies included in the review, 17 studies had a sample size of less than 300 participants, nine studies had a sample size of between 300 and 500 participants, whereas 11 studies had a sample size larger than 500 participants.

The articles widely differed in their statistical reporting practices, and therefore, the amount of statistical information provided in the below sections and Table 1 varies per reported study. Time frames of bullying and victimization prevalence estimates are reported in the below sections if they were specified in the included studies. Percentages are rounded off without decimals.

Prevalence Studies

Eight studies focused on the prevalence of bullying in India, while 14 others provided descriptive statistics or percentages for sample participants that qualified as bullies or victims in their study. Of these, five studies provided the participants with a definition of bullying for peer nomination estimates of bullying and victimization in their research (Goossens et al. 2018 ; Khatri 1996 ; Lee et al. 2018 ; Skrzypiec et al. 2018a ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ). Studies from the same city or region in India were scarce, and reports inconsistent. We found that bullying perpetration estimates ranged from 7% (Thakkar et al. 2020 ) to 31% (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ), and bullying victimization ranged from 9% (Thakkar et al. 2020 ) to 80% (Maji et al. 2016 ), across studies. For instance, Maji et al. ( 2016 ) found that only 38 of 273 adolescents were not bullied, resulting in a dominant 80% students qualifying as victims of bullying. Next to region differences in prevalence, estimates may be related to the reporter used. Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) found higher prevalence rates for bullying for self-reports than for parent or guardian interviews, whereas Thakkar et al. ( 2020 ) found higher prevalence estimates for bullying and victimization for peer reports than for self-reports. Findings as regards prevalence and other findings or aspects reviewed of each study are reported in Table 1 .

Forms of Bullying

It was observed that name-calling or using bad words were common forms of bullying observed among adolescents next to physical bullying. For instance, Kshirsagar et al. ( 2007 ) reported that the most common types of bullying were teasing and giving discriminatory or offensive labels and nick names to others. Similarly, Malhi et al. ( 2014 ) reported that 16% of their sample were victims of direct bullying or physical bullying and 34% were victims of name-calling. Skrzypiec et al. ( 2015 ) showed that caste-based bullying was reported by students and that for females, sexual harassment or “eve-teasing” was a common occurrence.

Risk Factors for Bullying and Victimization

Thirteen studies from India focus on the risk factors and correlates of bullying and victimization. Risk factors refer to variables that have the potential to increase or decrease the likelihood of bullying behaviors occurring (Olweus 1996 ), whereas correlates of bullying behaviors focus on factors that are significantly associated with, and co-occur with, bullying behaviors. Risk factors for bullying and victimization identified through the review were body weight (Patel et al. 2017 ), religion (Thakkar et al. 2020 ), and age (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ), and factors that were found to be significantly correlated to bullying behaviors were personality traits (neuroticism; Donat et al. 2012 ), academic performance (Patel et al. 2017 ), urban/rural setting (Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Samanta et al. 2012 ), and father’s education level (Sethi et al. 2019 ). Factors that were found to be risks or correlates of bullying behavior in various studies included in the review were caste-system of India (Kelly et al. 2016 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ), socio-economic status (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ), and gender differences.

Studies focusing on the caste system of India reported contradictory findings ranging from “General” caste students experiencing lower harassment (Kelly et al. 2016 ), “General” caste students experiencing more victimization (Thakkar et al. 2020 ), to no differences between castes (Khatri  1996 ). As regards the role of religion, Thakkar et al. ( 2020 ) reported that non-Hindu children were significantly more likely to classify as victims than Hindu children. For SES, Malhi et al. ( 2015 ) found a significant relationship between SES and victimization, with low SES students scoring higher on physical victimization, whereas high SES students scored higher on relational victimization. For gender comparison, although not fully consistent, most studies within India reported that boys scored higher than girls on bullying perpetration and bullying victimization (Narayanan and Betts 2014 ; Nguyen et al. 2017 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Pronk et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ; Sethi et al. 2019 ; Sharma et al. 2017 ; Swain et al. 2014 ). Age was also found to have some, though inconsistent, relationship with bullying behavior in school (Malhi et al. 2015 ; Patel et al. 2017 ; Ramya and Kulkarni 2011 ).

Consequences of Bullying

Being bullied was found to be associated with anxiety, depression, and preferring to stay alone (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ). Also, bullied children were more likely to report symptoms such as school phobia, vomiting, catastrophizing, self-blaming, and sleep disturbances (Kshirsagar et al. 2007 ; Maji et al. 2016 ). Bully-victims had higher risk of conduct problems, hyperactivity, and academic difficulties, and while bullies were found to be better at academics, they had high self-esteem, and higher risk of hyperactivity and conduct problems (Malhi et al. 2014 ; Sarkhel et al. 2006 ).

Based on the syntheses of studies included in our review, we draw the following conclusions: (a) limitations in methodological characteristics of studies were identified with regard to sampling, instrumentation, data collection processes, and presentation of findings, and thus, conclusions from the included studies must be considered cautiously; (b) bullying happens in India, as it does internationally, though the range of prevalence estimates varies widely across studies; (c) name-calling, using bad words and other forms of relational and social bullying are common in India, and physical bullying is also prevalent; (d) risk factors for bullying and victimization in India show some factors that are typical to the Indian context, for example, caste; and (e) bullying is associated with adverse consequences for both, the aggressor and the victim, in India.

The current review notes that bullying is widely spread in India. However, available prevalence estimates vary largely across India, for bullying perpetration and for victimization. India is a geographically vast country, with enormous differences in regional socio-demographics (Charak and Koot 2015 ), thereby constraining prevalence estimates to stratified regions. Scholars have noted that homogeneity within culture in India, like in many other countries, cannot be assumed (Panda and Gupta 2004 ). Thus, generalizing regional prevalence estimates to be representative across India is questionable, calling attention to the need to conduct cross-regional and cross-cultural comparative studies of bullying behavior within the country.

Furthermore, the type of instruments and their psychometric properties impact the findings of a study (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ), thereby not only making prevalence estimates from studies in the present review questionable but also warranting caution to conclusions. Also, conclusions about similarities or differences between the Indian and Western contexts require that metric invariance first be established to allow cross-ethnic and cross-cultural comparisons (Milfont and Fischer 2010 ). Of the 37 studies included in the present review, 22 studies provided descriptions of the psychometric properties of the instruments used, while 15 studies did not report the properties of instruments in their study raising concerns about comparability across studies in terms of instruments used. Furthermore, most studies on bullying in India adopted a quantitative method of data collection, where only 6 out of the included 37 in the present review used a qualitative approach to collect data for their research. The concerns about validity are increased by the over reliance on self-reports; we found that only 7 of the 37 studies used peer-reports, and 2 studies used self- as well as informant reports. In self-rating procedures, pupils tend to underestimate their aggressive behavior and emphasize prosocial behavior on account of social desirability (Salmivalli et al. 1996 ). There is an urgent need to validate and standardize instruments, with special attention to peer reports that assess bullying behaviors and establish their generalizability to Indian samples, to attain unbiased reports of bullying behavior in India (Sousa and Rojjanasrirat 2011 ).

Furthermore, only few studies included a sample that is sizable enough to provide firm, stable conclusions (Naing et al. 2006 ), and thus, the basis for the generalizability of the reports on the prevalence is very narrow. Ioannidis ( 2005 ) asserted that the smaller the sample sizes in a study, the smaller the power of the study, and consequently the higher the likelihood of the research findings to be affected by bias. Thus, we emphasize the need to conduct more studies across India, with proportional sample sizes for objective, less biased conclusions regarding bullying behavior. Also, the purposive selection of participants in 25 of the 37 included studies poses a potential threat to the validity of findings. In future studies, random sampling approaches should be used to study bullying in India.

Furthermore, we observe that there are only two longitudinal studies from India (Nguyen et al. 2019 ; Thakkar et al. 2020 ). Longitudinal studies help disentangle antecedents and consequents, to estimate the inter-individual variability in intra-individual (or within-person) patterns of change (Curran et al. 2010 ), allowing investigations of the sequence of occurrence of bullying with its risks and outcomes. Additionally, several studies in the present review report the adverse effects of bullying; however, the magnitude of these effects remains unclear. Only two of the 37 included studies were experimental studies with pre- and post-test intervention designs (Sharma et al. 2020 ; Shinde et al. 2018 , 2020 ), which also underlines the urgent need to conduct fundamental indigenous research on the topic of bullying behaviors so that future research focusing on effective and tailor-cut interventions can be modeled for the Indian context. Also, given that most studies included were cross-sectional, cause and effect reasoning for bullying behavior remains elusive in India, and warrants further attention.

Lastly, we emphasize that risk factors of bullying need to be studied in light of the Indian culture to understand its meaning and relevance in the culture (Smith et al. 2018 ). In western literature as well, several recent studies have indicated a growing need to study bullying in relation to its broader socio-cultural context (Graham 2016 ). This is imperative in the Indian context given the contextual-development perspective (Chen and French 2008 ), which suggests that in collectivistic countries like India, context is more likely to affect evaluations of socially acceptable behavior and experiences, rather than individual attributes. Given the diversity and population density of India, considerable disparities and inequalities co-exist between cultures and also within the sub-groups of particular cultures (Panda and Gupta 2004 ). For instance, factors such as caste, dissimilarities between urban and rural youth, and the range of SES as observed in India can help in better, more deeply understanding bullying.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

This review contributes valuable findings in the field of bullying and victimization in India. However, it has been noted that conducting research in India comes with its own set of logistical and contextual challenges (Smith et al. 2018 ), and thus, the conclusions drawn through the review must be considered with due caution given methodological limitations of the included studies. The quality of research conducted in India has scope of improvement in terms of methodological rigor, data collection processes, instrumentation, and presentation of the findings.

The present study is limited in capacity as it does not include a report on cyberbullying, and thus, future research on the topic of cyberbullying is necessitated within the Indian context. Furthermore, terms such as “aggression” and “discrimination” were not used as search terms in the current study. However, bullying is a form of aggression, and discrimination could be, in some cases, strongly tied to bullying (Verkuyten and Thijs 2002 ). Future studies should pay more attention to the relations between bullying and discrimination.

In contrast to the large body of research on bullying from western countries where findings have been reproduced with a delimited adolescent population insistently, data from India is scanty. India accommodates the largest adolescent population in the world, providing a potential reservoir of relatively untapped resources that could provide in-depth knowledge of causes and consequences of bullying and victimization. Given its special cultural context, there is considerable scope to scrutinize cultural contexts of bullying behavior in India that could assist in revealing novel insights, such as the role of socio-economic distance between different sects of society in low to middle income countries. Such insights might facilitate the conception of dynamic intervention designs for not only the Indian population but also for western populations. Future studies that compare how bullying happens in the western and Indian context would also help shed further light on this topic.

Study 3 (Correia et al. 2009 ) and 4 (Donat et al. 2012 ) have the same Indian sample in their studies. However, the variables examining correlates and consequences of bullying are different in the studies, and thus for the purpose of our review, we include both studies.

Study 8 by Khatri and Kupersmidt ( 2003 ) is based on a dissertation thesis submitted to University of North Carolina by the first author in 1996. For the purpose of our review, we consider the dissertation and the journal article as one inclusion since the participants as well as bullying reports are the same for both.

Study 19 (Nguyen et al. 2017 ) and 20 (Nguyen et al. 2019 ) have the same Indian sample in their studies. However, the former paper focuses on prevalence and forms of bullying and victimization, whereas the latter one examines psychosocial outcomes of victimization, and thus, we include both studies separately in the present review.

Study 32 includes reports from two articles (Shinde et al. 2018 ; Shinde et al. 2020 ). The studies use an intervention design with the same sample, and include reports after 12-month follow-up and 17-month follow-up of the design, both of which have been reported in point 32 in the present review.

Study 35 (Suresh and Tipandjan 2012 ) uses a retrospective bullying questionnaire with undergraduate college students. As the study focuses on bullying behavior in school retrospectively with adolescents, we included the study in the present review.

Articles marked with an asterisk (*) in the refernce list are the studies that have been included for synthesis in the present review.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8 , 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Bond, L., Wolfe, S., Tollit, M., Butler, H., & Patton, G. (2007). A comparison of the Gatehouse Bullying Scale and the Peer Relations Questionnaire for students in secondary school. Journal of School Healt h, 77, 75–79. ​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2007.00170.x .

*Bowker, J. C., Markovic, A., Cogswell, A., & Raja, R. (2012). Moderating effects of aggression on the associations between social withdrawal subtypes and peer difficulties during early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 995–1007.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2013). CDC-YRBS-Questionnaires and item rationales – adolescent and school health. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/questionnaire_rationale.htm . Accessed 15 Sept 2013.

*Chakrabartty, S. N., & Gupta, R. (2016). Test validity and number of response categories: a case of bullying scale. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 42, 344–353.

Google Scholar  

Charak, R., & Koot, H. M. (2015). Severity of maltreatment and personality pathology in adolescents of Jammu, India: a latent class approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 50 , 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.010 .

Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59 , 591–616. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093606 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Correia, I., Kamble, S. V., & Dalbert, C. (2009). Belief in a just world and well-being of bullies, victims and defenders: a study with Portuguese and Indian students. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 22 , 497–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800902729242 .

Curran, P. J., Obeidat, K., & Losardo, D. (2010). Twelve frequently asked questions about growth curve modeling. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11 , 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248371003699969 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

*Donat, M., Umlauft, S., Dalbert, C., & Kamble, S. V. (2012). Belief in a just world, teacher justice, and bullying behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21421 .

Elgar, F. J., McKinnon, B., Walsh, S. D., Freeman, J., Donnelly, P. D., de Matos, M. G., et al. (2015). Structural determinants of youth bullying and fighting in 79 countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57 , 643–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.007 .

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142. https://doi.org/10.1300/J135v02n02_08 .

*Goossens, F., Pronk, J., Lee, N., Olthof, T., Schäfer, M., Stoiber, M. . . . Kaur, S. (2018). Bullying, defending and victimization in Western Europe and India: similarities and differences. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian Perspectives. (pp. 146–165). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Gothwal, V. K., Sumalini, R., Irfan, S. M., Giridhar, A., & Bharani, S. (2013). Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire: evaluation in visually impaired. Optometry and Vision Science: Official Publication of the American Academy of Optometry , 90 , 828–835. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3182959b52 .

Graham, S. (2016). Victims of bullying in schools. Theory Into Practice, 55 , 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1148988 .

Hamburger, M.E., Basile, C., Vivolo, A.M., 2011. Measuring bullying victimization, perpetration and bystander experiences; A compedium of assessment tools. Centres for Disease Control and National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, Atlanta, GA.

Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2 , e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 .

Kazdin, A. E. (1996). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. California: Sage Publications.

*Kelly, O., Krishna, A., & Bhabha, J. (2016). Private schooling and gender justice: an empirical snapshot from Rajasthan, India’s largest state. International Journal of Educational Development, 46, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.10.004 .

*Khatri, P. (1996). Aggression, peer victimization, and social relationships among rural Indian youth (Doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

*Khatri, P., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (2003). Aggression, peer victimization, and social relationships among Indian youth. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250244000056 .

*Kshirsagar, V. Y., Agarwal, R., & Bavdekar, S. B. (2007). Bullying in schools: prevalence and short-term impact. Indian Pediatrics, 44 , 25–28.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Lee, N., Pronk, J., Olthof, T., Sandhu, D., Kaur, S., & Goossens, F. (2018). Defining the relationship between risk-taking and bullying during adolescence: a cross-cultural comparison. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 166–185). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Maji, S., Bhattacharya, S., & Ghosh, D. (2016). Cognitive coping and psychological problems among bullied and non-bullied adolescents. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 11 , 387–396.

*Malhi, P., Bharti, B., & Sidhu, M. (2014). Aggression in schools: psychosocial outcomes of bullying among Indian adolescents. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 81, 1171–1176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-014-1378-7 .

*Malhi, P., Bharti, B., & Sidhu, M. (2015). Peer victimization among adolescents: relational and physical aggression in Indian schools. Psychological Studies, 60 , 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-014-0283-5 .

*Malik, A., & Mehta, M. (2016). Bullying among adolescents in an Indian school. Psychological Studies, 61 , 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-016-0368-4 .

*Menon, M., & Hannah-Fisher, K. (2019). Felt gender typicality and psychosocial adjustment in Indian early adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 43 , 334–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025418820669 .

Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3 , 111–130. https://doi.org/10.21500/20112084.857 .

Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55 , 602–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 .

*Munni, R., & Malhi, P. (2006). Adolescent violence exposure, gender issues and impact. Indian Pediatrics, 43 , 607–612.

Mynard, H., & Joseph, S. (2000). Development of the multidimensional peer‐victimization scale. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(2000)26:2<169::AID-AB3>3.0.CO;2-A .

Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B. N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1 , 9–14.

*Nambiar, P., Jangam, K., Roopesh, B. N., & Bhaskar, A. (2019). Peer victimization and its relationship to self-esteem in children with mild intellectual disability and borderline intellectual functioning in regular and special schools: an exploratory study in urban Bengaluru. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744629519831573 .

*Narayanan, A., & Betts, L. R. (2014). Bullying behaviors and victimization experiences among adolescent students: the role of resilience. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 175, 134–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.834290 .

*Nguyen, A. J., Bradshaw, C., Townsend, L., & Bass, J. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of bullying victimization in four low-resource countries. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517709799 .

*Nguyen, A. J., Bradshaw, C. P., Townsend, L., Gross, A., & Bass, J. (2019). It gets better: attenuated associations between latent classes of peer victimization and longitudinal psychosocial outcomes in four low-resource countries. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 , 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0935-1 .

Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the Schools: Bullies and Whipping Boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere Press (Wiley).

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: what we know and what can we do. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10114 .

Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems in school. Prospects, 26 , 331–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02195509 .

Orpinas, P., & Horne, A. (2006). Bullying prevention: Creating a positive school climate and developing social competence. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Panda, A., & Gupta, R. K. (2004). Mapping cultural diversity within India: a meta-analysis of some recent studies. Global Business Review, 5 , 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/097215090400500103 .

Parada, R. H. (2000). Adolescent Peer Relations Instrument: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of participant roles in bullying and victimization of adolescence: An interim test manual and a research monograph: A test manual.  Sydney, Australia: Publication Unit, Self-concept Enhancement and Learning Facilitation (SELF) Research Centre, University of Western Sydney.

*Patel, H. A., Varma, J., Shah, S., Phatak, A., & Nimbalkar, S. M. (2017). Profile of bullies and victims among urban school-going adolescents in Gujarat. Indian Pediatrics , 54 , 841–843. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13312-017-1146-7 .

Perry, D. G., Kusel, S. J., & Perry, L. C. (1988). Victims of peer aggression. Developmental Psychology, 24, 807–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.24.6.807 .

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.

*Prakash, R., Beattie, T., Javalkar, P., Bhattacharjee, P., Ramanaik, S., Thalinja, R. . . . Isac, S. (2017). Correlates of school dropout and absenteeism among adolescent girls from marginalized community in north Karnataka, south India. Journal of Adolescence, 61 , 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.09.007 .

*Pronk, J., Lee, N. C., Sandhu, D., Kaur, K., Kaur, S., Olthof, T., & Goossens, F. A. (2017). Associations between Dutch and Indian adolescents’ bullying role behavior and peer-group status: cross-culturally testing an evolutionary hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 41 , 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025416679743 .

*Ramya, S. G., & Kulkarni, M. L. (2011). Bullying among school children: prevalence and association with common symptoms in childhood. Indian Journal of Pediatrics, 78 , 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-010-0219-6 .

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1991). Bullying among Australian school children: Reported behavior and attitudes toward victims. The Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 615–627. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1991.9924646 .

Rigby, K., & Slee, P. T. (1993). Dimensions of interpersonal relation among Australian children and implications for psychological well-being. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712116 .

Ruchkin, V., Schwab-Stone, M., & Vermeiren, R. (2004). Social and Health Assessment (SAHA): Psychometric development summary. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1996)22:1<1::AID-AB1>3.0.CO;2-T .

*Samanta, A., Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, S., & Dasgupta, A. (2012). Mental health, protective factors and violence among male adolescents: a comparison between urban and rural school students in West Bengal . Indian Journal of Public Health, 56, 155–158. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-557X.99916 .

*Sarkhel, S., Sinha, V. K., Arora, M., & Desarkar, P. (2006). Prevalence of conduct disorder in school children of Kanke. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 159–164. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.31579 .

Sawyer, M. G., Pfeiffer, S., Spence, S. H., Bond, L., Graetz, B., Kay, D., ... & Sheffield, J. (2010). School‐based prevention of depression: a randomised controlled study of the beyondblue schools research initiative. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 199–209. ​ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02136.x .

Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora‐Merchán, J. A., Singer, M. M., & Van der Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22 , 379–394. ​ https://doi.org/10.1348/0261510041552756 .

*Schäfer, M., Stoiber, M., Bramböck, T., Letsch, H., Starch, K., & Sundaram, S. (2018). Participant roles in bullying: what data from Indian classes can tell us about the phenomenon. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 130–145). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

*Sethi, S., Setiya, R., & Kumar, A. (2019). Prevalence of school bullying in middle school children in urban Rohtak, State Haryana, India. Journal of Indian Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 15, 13–28.

*Sharma, D., Kishore, J., Sharma, N., & Duggal, M. (2017). Aggression in schools: cyberbullying and gender issues. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2017.05.018 .

*Sharma, D., Mehari, K. R., Kishore, J., Sharma, N., & Duggal, M. (2020). Pilot Evaluation of Setu, a School-Based Violence Prevention Program Among Indian Adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence , 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619899480 .

*Shinde, S., Weiss, H. A., Varghese, B., Khandeparkar, P., Pereira, B., Sharma, A. . . . Patel, V. (2018). Promoting school climate and health outcomes with the SEHER multi-component secondary school intervention in Bihar, India: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 392, 2465–2477. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31615-5 .

*Shinde, S., Weiss, H. A., Khandeparkar, P., Pereira, B., Sharma, A., Gupta, R., ... & Patel, V. (2020). A multicomponent secondary school health promotion intervention and adolescent health: an extension of the SEHER cluster randomised controlled trial in Bihar, India. PLoS Medicine, 17, e1003021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003021 .

*Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., & Sandhu, D. (2015). Using the Photostory Method to Understand the Cultural Context of Youth Victimisation in the Punjab. The International Journal of Emotional Education, 7, 52–68.

*Skrzypiec, G., Alinsug, E., Nasiruddin, U. A., Andreou, E., Brighi, A., Didaskalou, E. . . . Yang, C. C. (2018a). Self-reported harm of adolescent peer aggression in three world regions. Child Abuse and Neglect, 85, 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.030 .

*Skrzypiec, G., Slee, P., Sandhu, D., & Kaur, S. (2018b). Bullying or peer aggression? A pilot study with Punjabi adolescents. In P. K. Smith, S. Sundaram, B. A. Spears, C. Blaya, M. Schäfer, & D. Sandhu (Eds.), Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives. (pp. 45–60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, P. K., Sundaram, S., Spears, B. A., Blaya, C., Schäfer, M., & Sandhu, D. (Eds.). (2018). Bullying, cyberbullying and student well-being in schools: Comparing European, Australian and Indian perspectives . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Sousa, V. D., & Rojjanasrirat, W. (2011). Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17 , 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x .

*Suresh, S., & Tipandjan, A. (2012). School bullying victimization and college adjustment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38, 68–73.

*Swain, S., Mohanan, P., Sanah, N., Sharma, V., & Ghosh, D. (2014). Risk behaviors related to violence and injury among school-going adolescents in Karnataka, Southern India. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 26, 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh-2013-0334 .

Tarshis, T. P., & Huffman, L. C. (2007). Psychometric properties of the Peer Interactions in Primary School (PIPS) questionnaire. J ournal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 28 , 125–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.DBP.0000267562.11329.8f .

*Thakkar, N., van Geel, M., Malda, M., Rippe, R. C. A., & Vedder, P. (2020). Bullying and psychopathic traits: a longitudinal study with adolescents in India. Psychology of Violence, 10, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000277 .

Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Zijlstra, B. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). The dyadic nature of bullying and victimization: Testing a dual-perspective theory. Child Development, 78, 1843–1854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01102.x .

Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2002). Racist victimization among children in The Netherlands: the effect of ethnic group and school. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25 , 310–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870120109502 .

Wolke, D., Lee, K., & Guy, A. (2017). Cyberbullying: a storm in a teacup? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26 , 899–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-0954-6 .

World Health Organization. Global school-based student health survey (GSHS). (2001). Available from: https://www.who.int/entity/chp/gshs/methodology/en/index.html . Accessed 25 Dec 2009.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute of Education and Child Studies, Leiden University, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333, AK, Leiden, The Netherlands

Niharika Thakkar, Mitch van Geel & Paul Vedder

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niharika Thakkar .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

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/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thakkar, N., van Geel, M. & Vedder, P. A Systematic Review of Bullying and Victimization Among Adolescents in India. Int Journal of Bullying Prevention 3 , 253–269 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00081-4

Download citation

Published : 07 September 2020

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-020-00081-4

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

• Victimization
• Systematic review
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 22 November 2021

Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships

• Temesgen Demissie Eijigu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-8844 1 &
• Seleshi Zeleke Teketel 2  

BMC Psychology volume  9 , Article number:  183 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

9157 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents. This study attempts to estimate the prevalence and examine the association of bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

This study followed an explanatory mixed-method study design. For the quantitative phase, 612 participants were selected using multistage cluster sampling techniques and for qualitative phase, 18 participants were selected using purposive sampling technique. We used self-reported questionnaires and semi-structured interviews to collect data from students attending grades 7, 8, 9, and 10.

This study revealed that 55% of bystanders remained passive while 38% of them defended the victim upon witnessing bullying incidents. Pearson Chi-Square test for independence indicated a significant association between bystanders’ relationship with the victim and/or bully, and bystanders’ reaction. In contrast, sex has no significant association with bystanders’ reaction. The semi-structured interview data also suggested that large number of bystanders most often stood by passively while some of them defended the victim.

The practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending.

Peer Review reports

Bullying and peer victimization are the most pressing social problems affecting the wellbeing of children and adolescents [ 1 ]. Although bullying occurs in many contexts [ 2 ], it is predominantly prevalent within a school setting [ 3 , 4 ]. For instance, over 90% of primary and secondary school students in Australia witnessed verbal bullying, and more than 60% witnessed physical bullying in their schools [ 5 ]. Moreover, a study on the prevalence of being bullied in South Australian schools depicted that approximately one of every two secondary school students experienced victimization by peers while at school [ 3 ].

The problem of violence and bullying is also prevalent in Ethiopia [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. A study in Addis Ababa revealed that 84% of teachers and directors confirmed that violence is a problem in and around primary and secondary schools, mainly targeting girls and smaller children [ 7 ]. Similarly, a national study in Ethiopia revealed that 13.1% and 16.7% of children have been left out and hit by other children, respectively, in their class [ 10 ].

The situation of school bullying in the East Gojjam Zone does not seem an exception. For example, in the 2014 academic year, more than 57% of students in Menkorer High School at Debre Markos Town, the capital of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, experienced physical and sexual violence [ 11 ].

School bullying is viewed as a group phenomenon that, in addition to bullies and victims, involves a large number of bystanders who witness bullying [ 12 , 13 , 14 ]. For instance, two studies in Canada illustrated that peer bystanders were present in more than five out of six bullying episodes [ 13 , 14 ]. Another natural observational research also reported that peers were present closely in nine out of ten bullying episodes [ 13 ]. Although bullying often occurs in the presence of large bystanders who have a high potential to reduce it, most do not intervene to stop it [ 13 , 14 ].

In bullying situations, bystanders may take the following four roles: (1) assistants, who join in the bully’s side (2) reinforcers, who encourage bullies (3) passive bystanders, who merely watch what is happening and (4) defenders, who stand up on behalf of victims [ 12 ]. Recent studies proposed three forms of bystander roles as passive bystanders, defenders, and pro-bully/bully supporters/by combining the roles of assistant and reinforcers [ 15 ].

A study in 1220 elementary school children from grades four to six found that low scores on the anti-bullying attitude scale were associated with bullying, assisting the bully, and reinforcing the bully. In contrast, high scores on that scale were related to defending the victim and remaining passive in bullying situations [ 16 ]. Since passive bystanders scored high in anti-bullying attitude and moral disapproval scores of bullying, it is easier to change them to the defenders than assistants and reinforcers. Thus, passive bystanders were the focus of this study. Besides, passive bystanders and defenders account for more than half of the bystanders who could play a key role in reducing bullying. To our knowledge, no previous studies in Ethiopia estimated the extent of defenders and passive bystanders during bullying in primary and general secondary school students. Thus, one of the focuses of this study was to estimate the extent of defending and passive bystanding behaviors during school bullying.

Empirical findings reported gender differences in defending and passive bystanding behavior [ 5 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Several studies revealed that girls are more involved in defending the victim [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 21 , 22 ] and remaining passive in bullying situations than boys, whereas boys were more involved in supporting bullies as assistants and reinforcers than girls [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 23 ]. In addition, some studies have shown a significant association between the gender of the bystander, the gender of the bully, and the victim [ 13 ]. Their findings suggest that boys are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is male, whereas girls are more likely to defend when the bully or victim is female. Likewise, some studies [ 24 , 25 ] documented that students were more likely to defend their same-sex peers than opposite-sex peers. This shows that previous studies emphasized sex differences and how bystanders are more likely to help the same sex victim [ 17 , 18 , 19 ]. They did not answer the question, “To what extent do female and/or male bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a girl victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a girl. Thus, further research is needed to fill these knowledge gaps.

Furthermore, bystanders’ relationships with the victim or bully may also influence defending or passive bystanding behavior [ 26 , 27 ]. These studies revealed that bystanders who had a close relationship with the victim are more likely to help the victim, whereas those who had a close relationship with the perpetrator and no relationship with the victim are more likely to remain passive; sometimes it may even initiate co-bullying [ 26 ]. The motives for co-bullying or non-intervention, were reported to come from fear of friendship loss, perceived peer pressure, or to not disprove the actions of friends.

In the culture of Amhara, when one's close relative or friend is attacked, he/she will not watch the incident passively. At least, he/she is expected to separate the bully and the victim. This strong social bond among Amhara society [ 28 ] makes it reasonable to include bystanders’ relationship with the bully and victim in the study.

Research question

This research planned to answer the following questions:

To what extent do students defend or remain passive during bullying incidents in primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone?

To what extent do male and female bystanders defend or remain passive upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, a girl victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy?

Does the relationship between the bystander and the victim or the bystander and the bully make a difference in the bystander’s reaction?

This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying in East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Ethiopia.

Study design

This study followed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design [ 29 , 30 ] with quantitative data collection and analysis in the first phase and qualitative data collection and analysis in the second phase. Mixed methods design was selected to other designs since the complex nature of bystanding behaviors during school bullying requires an investigation from multiple ways.

The study was conducted in primary and general secondary schools from Aneded, Debre Markos, Enebesie Sar Medir, Enemay, and Machakel Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. These five Woredas consists of 181 second cycle primary schools (Grades 5–8) and 19 secondary schools (grades 9 and 10). Primary and general secondary schools from Woredas in East Gojjam Administrative Zone were selected due to bullying prevalence and its serious consequences. In addition to familiarity with the language and culture, the researcher works in the study area that may contribute to the study.

Participants and sampling techniques

The quantitative data were drawn from 612 students aged 12–16 years attending five primary schools in grades 7and 8 and five general secondary schools in grades 9 and 10 (see Table 1 ). To select participants for this study, we used a multistage cluster sampling procedure. In the first stage, we subdivided the 19 Woredas of East Gojjam Administrative Zone into five groups based on the number of students’ population from grades 7–10. From each group, we selected one woreda randomly. Then, from each woreda, one general secondary school was chosen randomly. Next, for accessibility and comparison purposes, from all primary schools in the area where the selected general secondary schools were situated, one primary school from each woreda was selected by using lottery method. Then, one class from each grade in each school was selected by applying lottery method. Accordingly, 20 classes of students from both primary and general secondary schools (10 classes each) were invited to participate in the study.

On the other hand, the qualitative data were drawn from 18 participants (9 boys and 9 girls) who witnessed bullying incidents. To select participants, a purposive sampling technique was employed. With the help of school principals, homeroom teachers, and classroom representatives, students who usually defend or passively watch when witnessing bullying incidents were selected. Participants’ age ranged from 14 to 16 years, and more than 22% were from rural areas. Concerning grade level, five students were from grade seven, four students from grade eight, five students from grade nine, and four students from grade ten.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

All students who were attending grades 7–10 education in 20 classes were included in the study. Those students who witnessed bullying were also included in the study. Those students outside the age range of 12–16 years, who did not witness bullying, and absent from class during data collection were excluded from the study.

Data collection instruments

Questionnaire.

To collect quantitative data, self-report questionnaires have been adapted from previous sources [ 17 ]. To estimate the prevalence and examine the association between bystander’s sex, her/his relationship with the victim and with the bully, and bystander’s reaction to school bullying, participants were asked to recall one particular incident where they witnessed a student/s bullying another student since the beginning of this semester. The items included in the questionnaire were: “Describe in brief the nature of the bullying incident you witnessed,” “When and where the bullying incident happened,” “Describe the characteristics of the victim and the bully (sex, grade, bystander’s relationship with the victim/bully such as close relative, close friend, classmate, a person that I knew but have no close relationship, or person that I did not know),” and “What did you do when you witnessed bullying incident?”.

A bystander was placed into categories of defender, passive bystander, and bully supporter based on his/her reactions to the bullying incident in the school:

If a student answers, “I joined in the bullying when the bully had started it,” “I assisted the bullying by doing something for the bully”, and/or “I giggled, laughed, shouted, or made similar reactions,” s/he is categorized under “bully supporter.”

If a student answers, “I kept looking at the bullying without siding anyone,” “Nothing, I went away from the situation,” and/or “Nothing, I pretended not to notice what was happening,” s/he is categorized under “passive bystander.”

If a student answers, “I tried to help in some way but was not successful,” and/or I tried to help in some way and was successful,” s/he is categorized under “defender.”

The English version of the instrument was translated into the Amharic language by three language experts who have Ph.D. in Teaching Amharic, Linguistic, and Teaching English as a Foreign Language and whose mother tongue was Amharic. The principal investigator of this study synthesized a single version by combining the best cultural translation of each item. The appropriateness of the synthesized translated version was judged by three language experts (two Amharic, one English) and two psychologists. By taking into account the feedback offered by professionals, in view of the study's objectives and reviewed literature, the researcher of this study revised the synthesized translated version of the instrument. An expert from Debre Markos University who had a doctoral degree in Teaching English as a Foreign Language back-translated the synthesized version from Amharic into English. Moreover, the Amharic version of the instrument was submitted to seven psychology instructors of Debre Markos University to assess the instruments' content validity. Based on comments of experts, some items were modified. Finally, the questionnaire was administered to the participants during the period 01–31 January 2019.

Semi-structure interview

The interviews were conducted face to face by the principal investigator from 01 April to 02 May 2019 using semi-structured open-ended items with probing questions. Interviews were conducted at the offices of the counselor, or school director lasted between 30 and 45 min. Students were alone (not accompanied by guardians/parents) when interviews were administered. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and notes were taken properly. Items in the interview guide include: “If you have witnessed someone being bullied by another student, tell me what happened?”, “How did you feel when you saw bullying happening?”, “What did you do when you witnessed bullying happening? Why?”, “Who else witnessed the bullying situations besides you?”, “What did they do when this was happening?”, “Why do you think they reacted this way?”, “Why do you think that some students defend and others remain silent in bullying incidents?” and “How do you describe boys and girls' engagement in defending or passive bystanding behaviors?”.

Data analysis techniques

Researchers employed percentage to describe the rate of defending and passive bystanding behavior during bullying incidents for data analysis. Chi-square test of independence was used to check the association between bystanders’ sex, their relationship with the victim and with the bully, and their reaction to the bullying incident. Thematic analysis [ 31 ] was used to analyze the qualitative data.

Ethical considerations

Addis Ababa University School of Psychology Ethical Review Committee exempted the study from requiring ethical clearance and suggested collecting letter of permission from the school of Psychology. Accordingly, a letter of permission was collected from the School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University.

Permission letters were submitted to East Gojjam Administrative Zone Education Office. The office itself wrote a letter of permission to school directors. After receiving permission from school directors, students were also asked their willingness to participate in the study. Before data collection, informed assent and passive consent were secured from students and parents, respectively. Students were also informed that they would be free to omit any questions they did not want to answer. The participants were also informed that their identity would not be disclosed to any third party, and the information they provided would be kept confidential.

The extent of defenders, passive bystanders, and bully supporters

Out of 511 participants who reported witnessing a single bullying incident, 55% of bystanders reported being passive bystanders, and 38% of them reported being defenders (see Table 2 ). The Chi-Square test revealed significant differences between the three percentages, x 2 (2, N = 511) = 181.131, p  = 0.000.

In the semi-structured interview, all of the participants agreed that most of the students did not want to defend the victims when witnessing school bullying. For instance, One interviewee stated, “Those who stand and watch victimization were larger than those who defend because they have the interest to see the fight and to know who wins at the end.”

The extent of students involved in defending, passive bystanding, and bully supporting by bully-victim sex

As shown in Table 3 , 39.3% of bystanders witnessed male victimizing male, 33.1% witnessed male victimizing female, 20.2% witnessed female victimizing female, and 7.4% witnessed female victimizing male.

Since the bully support role expected frequencies were less than 5 in more than 8% of the cells [ 32 ], and the purpose of the study focused on defending and passive bystanding behaviors, the bully support role was removed from further analysis (see Table 4 ).

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (3, N = 475) = 1.956, p  = 0.58, Cramer’s V = 0.06.

The extent to which male and female bystanders defend, or remain passive upon witnessing victimization across bully-victim sex

Tables 5 , 6 , 7 and 8 summarizes that 67.2% of males and 32.8% females had witnessed male victimizing male, 31.2% males, and 68.8% females witnessed male victimizing femalel, 14.4% males and 85.6% females witnessed female victimizing female, and 63.9% males and 36.1% females witnessed female victimizing male.

Among students who witnessed male victimizing male, 40.2% of boys and 38.7% of girls defended victims. Besides, 36% of boys and 49.1% of girls who witnessed male victimizing female helped victims in some way. Regarding students who saw female victimizing female, 46.2% of boys and 35.1% of girls defended victims. Moreover, 30.4% of boys and 53.8% of girls helped victims when witnessing female victimizing male.

The Chi-Square test revealed no significant association between bystander’s sex with victimization across bully-victim sex and bystander’s reaction. The Chi-Square test values were χ 2 (1, N = 189) = 0.001, p  = 0.974, phi  = − 0.014, for students witnessing male victimizing male; χ 2 (1, N = 160) = 1.881, p  = 0.170, phi  = − 0.122, for students witnessing male victimizing female; and χ 2 (1, N = 36) = 1.057, p  = 0.304, phi  = − 0.231, for students witnessing female victimizing male.

The interview data revealed that boys and girls intervened when witnessing school bullying. For instance, Hermela noted, “When male victimizes female, mostly girls hold girls and boys hold boys.” Kidist, a ninth-grade student, also indicated, “When female victimizes female, both boys and girls may intervene.”

The qualitative data demonstrated a dissimilar intervention approach between girls and boys when witnessing male physically victimizing male. Male students, most of the time, defend directly when witnessing male physically victimizing male. On the other hand, girls can participate in defending indirectly by screaming or calling other students or reporting the case to the school authority. For instance, Hermela says, “When male physically attacks male, mostly boys and teachers directly intervene.” Debasu, an eighth-grade student said “If a girl directly intervenes when male is victimized, rumors will spread which show the girl has love affair with the victim.”

The extent of students’ participation in defending and passive bystanding behavior by relationship with the victim or bully

As indicated in Tables 9 and 10 , bystanders were asked to report their relationship with victims and bullies. Among those who reported their relationship with victims and bullies, 3.6% and 3.8% reported to be relatives, 26.7% and 11.6% close friends, 24.6% and 24.2% classmates, 24.6% and 26.3% knew the victim/bully, but have no close relationships, and 20.4% and 34.1% did not know the victim and bully, respectively. Among those who reported their relationship with the victim, 52.9% of relatives, 60.6% of close friends, and 47.8% of classmates defended the victim. Similarly, among those who reported their relationship with the bully, 61.1% of relatives, 49.1% of close friends, and 47% of classmates defended the victim.

The Chi-Square test revealed that there is a significant association between the relationship with the victim and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, 475) = 32.79, p  < 0.001, phi = − 0.263; and between relationship with the bully and bystander’s reaction, χ 2 (4, N = 475) = 9.847, p  = 0.043, phi  = − 0.114.

The qualitative data through interview indicated that bystanders’ close relationship with the victim or/and bully as key determinant of defending upon witnessing school bullying. For instance, Debasu said “I have entered (involved in defending) because both the perpetrators and the victims were my friends.” A grade eight student named Binyam stated, “Students who are relative or close friends…to the victim/bully would not have any role other than separating the bully and the victim.” Hermela also noted that relatives, friends, and teachers are defenders during victimization.

On the other hand, not being a friend of the bully or the victim was reported as a possible reason for bystanders’ passive bystanding. For instance, Hermela mentioned “bystanders’ not being the friend of the bully or the victim as one reason for bystanders to surround and watch bullying events. Had the bystanders been friends of the victim/bully, they would have intervened or they would have called a teacher.”

The extent to which students defend or passively watch during bullying incidents

The findings of this study revealed that a larger proportion of students remained passive upon witnessing school bullying. Fifty five percent of bystanders were involved in passive bystanding behavior, and 38% of them involved in defending behavior.

The interview data also supported the findings of the quantitative data. All participants of the interview reported that many bystanders most often stood by passively, and only some of them defended the victim. Many participants concisely stated that when students in school witness bullying incidents, most of them often stand and observe while a small number of others decide to defend.

These findings are consistent with prior studies [ 14 , 17 ]. For instance, a study conducted on college students who recalled bullying events occurring in junior high school and high school students with the same method reported that 59% of bystanders chose to remain passive upon witnessing bullying situations, and 31% of them were involved in defending on behalf of the victims [ 17 ]. Similar findings were also reported in an observational study conducted in two Toronto school children in Canada [ 14 ]. Even the percentages are very close to the ones this study found.

There are various explanations attributed to the surpassing of passive bystanders to defenders in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. One reason for passivity of bystanders during bullying incidents may involve the gradual decline of helping relationships due to urbanization. In the past, people do not often standby and watch when one individual victimized another. Findings in Yetmen, East Gojjam, revealed that when conflicts arise within and between households, they were usually resolved by neighbors. If neighbors cannot solve the problem, relatives of the two parties consider the problem and try to address it. If this level of conflict resolution fails, the elder of the community get involved [ 28 ]. So, helping each other during an emergency was the norm. Due to urbanization, the norms of helping relationships are changing somehow in the current East Gojjam. Another possible explanation for more passive bystanders to defenders involves fear of revenge. If the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystanders are more likely to remain passive. Student bystanders may believe that defending on behalf of the victim could lead the older/or stronger bully to attack the defender later. Many other personal and situational factors (e.g., lower level of bystander’s self-efficacy, empathy, lower number of close friends, bullying experiences, high moral disengagement) may also be used to explain greater proportions of passive bystanders to defenders in bullying situations [ 17 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 33 ].

The quantitative findings demonstrated that there were no significant difference between boys and girls in defending and passive bystanding behaviors upon witnessing a boy victimizing a boy, a boy victimizing a girl, and a girl victimizing a boy.

According to the interview data, both boys and girls can intervene when a boy victimizes a boy. But, their style of intervention may differ. Boys may intervene directly when witnessing physical bullying, whereas girls may intervene indirectly. Many participants said that boys, teachers, and adults directly intervene when a boy physically victimizes a boy. One possible reason for the direct intervention of more boys than girls was that if a girl intervenes directly when a boy victimizes a boy, rumors of love between the girl and the victim will spread. In the culture of the study area, having a boyfriend for a girl and a girlfriend for a boy is not a commonly accepted norm at that age level. If they establish such kinds of friendship, they do not disclose it to others. If other students know the relationship, they become the target of the rumor. So as to avoid being the target of the rumor, the girl will decide to use indirect strategies to help the victim.

Another possible explanation for more direct defending of boys than girls in physical bullying was that boys were more often socialized and culturally expected to defend directly than girls. Let alone defending on behalf of the victim, boys are expected to be a winner in any fight by their families and are not accepted by families if beaten up by anyone. If they fail to win the fight, their parents could further beat them. Though girls’ involvement in separating the bully and the victim is less direct, they frequently call defenders by screaming.

The finding also indicated that when a boy victimizes a girl, a girl victimizes a girl, and a girl victimizes a boy, most of the interview participants reported that both boys and girls are engaged in defending. This finding partly contradicts some other findings [ 24 , 25 ]. To explain these findings further, future researches are needed.

The current study revealed that students who were reported to be close friends, classmates, and relatives of the victims appear to defend the victim more than persons who either knew the victim or did not know them. Consistent with the current study, five studies included in one systematic review have examined the association between friendship with students involved in bullying situations and defending [ 33 ]. The studies revealed that youth were more likely to defend when the victimized youth was their friend, relative to a neutral peer. Similarly, some studies [ 26 , 27 ] revealed the association between bystanders’ close relationship with the victim and helping. For example, suppose a bystander is watching one’s own friend being bullied. In that case, the situation evokes more distressing emotions of empathy, sympathy, guilt, or anger and a stronger moral obligation and responsibility to intervene to help one’s friend [ 27 ].

The findings from the interview data also corroborated the quantitative results. The study showed that after bystanders witnessed bullying incidents, they evaluate their relationships (friendship, kinship, and disliking) with the bully, victim, or both before deciding to defend or passively watch the bullying incident. If bystanders witness victims with intimate relationships (friendship and blood relationship), they are more likely to defend the victim. Participants mentioned being close friends, relatives, and teachers with the victim as contributing factors to defending.

The finding that students who were reported to be relatives, close friends, and classmates of the bully appear to defend the victim more than persons who know and those who did not know the bully was unexpected. The qualitative interview also supported this finding. Some interview participants disclosed that having a close relationship with the bully would motivate the bystander to assist the victim. If bystanders are close friends or relatives of the bully, they can enter with confidence to protect the victim believing that the bully will not attack them later. Another possible reason for bystanders who have close relationships with the bully to stop the bully could be the belief that the problem will worsen and affect the whole family and its relatives. However, one participant reported that if bystanders have a close relationship with the bully, they might assist the bully to harm the victim further. Thus, further studies are needed.

Limitations of the study

The current study has some limitations. First, the study participants were limited to young and middle adolescents in East Gojjam Administrative Zone. This could reduce the diversity of the sample and the generalizability of the findings. Had I included adults as well, the findings could have been more generalizable. Second, the quantitative and qualitative findings on defending and passive bystanding behaviors were based on self-report measures. In self-reporting data, study participants may not always provide honest evidences. Third, the current research was cross-sectional, where cause and effect relationships could not be inferred.

Fourth, it is expected that if the perpetrator is older and/or physically stronger than the bystander, the bystander is more likely to remain passive during the incident of bullying. However, the current study did not collect information on age and/or physical differences between bully and bystander. If future studies include age and physical differences between the bystander and the bully, it would have more insights into school bullying literature.

Practice of defending among students attending their education in governmental primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone was low. Close social relationships (being close friends, relatives, and classmates) with the victim and bully were significantly associated with the practice of defending. The findings of our qualitative study also showed that the number of passive bystanders was larger than defenders during witnessing school bullying; and bystanders’ close relationship with the victim, or/and bully as key determinants of defending.

High prevalence of passive bystanding behavior demand prevention programs that can discourage bullying in schools among bystanders in bullying situations through encouraging defending behavior irrespective of bully-victim sex, and helping bystanders establish close social relationships with the victim or/and bully.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets that support the findings of this study are not publically available at present. The authors need to use the data for further works before data could be made available. Besides, we have not received consent from participants to share the data on the web but, will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Hong JS, Espelage DL. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: an ecological system analysis. Aggress Violent Behav. 2012;17:311–22.

Article   Google Scholar  

Smith PK, Sharp S, editors. The problem of school bullying. New York: USA Routledge; 1994.

Google Scholar  

Delfabbro P, Winefield T, Trainor S, Dollard M, Anderson S, Metzer J, et al. Peer and teacher bullying/victimization of South Australian secondary school students: prevalence and psychosocial profiles. Br J Educ Psychol. 2006;76:71–90.

Harris S, Petrie GF. Bullying: the bullies, the victims, the bystanders. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.; 2003.

Rigby K, Johnson B. Expressed readiness of Australian Schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied. Educ Psychol. 2006;26(3):425–40.

Amogne A. Indiscipline problems of high school students: the case of Ethio-Japan Hidasse Secondary School (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). J Educ Pract. 2014;5(37):23–8.

Dereje T, Derese M, editors. Violence in Ethiopian schools: a study of some schools in Addis Ababa. Lausanne: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; 1997.

Habtamu W. Interpersonal violence in Addis Ababa secondary schools: an iceberg of challenges to the democratization of education in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: IER/AAU; 1998.

Kinde G, Meknnen S. Types, magnitude, predictors, and controlling mechanisms of aggression in secondary schools of Jimma zone. Ethiop J Educ Sci. 2007;2(2):39–61.

Yehualashet M, Negussie D. Children’s worlds national report Ethiopia. Addis Ababa: The African Child Policy Forum; 2015.

Getachew M, Ayu G, Desalegne A, Animut A, Fasil W, Chalachew T, et al. Prevalence of gender based violence and associated factors among female students of Menkorer high school in Debre Markos town. Northwest Ethiop Sci J Public Health. 2015;3(1):67–74.

Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjorkqvist K, Osterman K, Kaukiainen A. Bullying as a group process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggress Behav. 1996;22:1–15.

Hawkins DL, Pepler DJ, Craig WM. Naturalistic observations of peer interventions in bullying. Soc Dev. 2001;10(4):512–27.

O’Connell P, Pepler D, Craig W. Peer involvement in bullying: insights and challenges for intervention. J Adolesc. 1999;22:437–52.

Thornberg R, Jungert T. Bystander behavior in bullying situations: basic moral sensitivity, moral disengagement and defender self-efficacy. J Adolesc. 2013;36(3):475–83.

Salmivalli C, Voeten M. Connections between attitudes, group norms, and behavior in bullying situations. Int J Behav Dev. 2004;28(3):246–58.

Oh I, Hazler RJ. Contributions of personal and situational factors to bystanders’ reactions to school bullying. Sch Psychol Int. 2009;30(3):291–310.

Gini G, Albiero P, Benelli B, Altoe G. Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggress Behav. 2007;33:467–76.

Pronk J, Olthof T, Goossens FA. Factors influencing interventions on behalf of victims of bullying: a counterfactual approach to the social cognitions of outsiders and defenders. J Early Adolesc. 2014;36(2):267–91.

Pöyhönen V, Juvonen J, Salmivalli C. What does it take to stand up for the victim of bullying? The interplay between personal and social factors. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2010;56(2):143–63.

Obermann M. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer-nominated school bullying. Aggress Behav. 2011;37:133–44.

Gini G, Pozzoli T, Bussey K. The role of individual and collective moral disengagement in peer aggression and bystanding: a multilevel analysis. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2015;43:441–52.

Pouwels JL, Lansu TAM, Cillessen AHN. Participant roles of bullying in adolescence: status characteristics, social behavior, and assignment criteria. Aggress Behav. 2016;42:239–53.

Fox CL, Jones SE, Stiff CE, Sayers J. Does the gender of the bully/victim dyad and the type of bullying influence children’s responses to a bullying incident? Aggress Behav. 2014;40:359–68.

Sainio M. Same- and other-sex victimization: risk factors, consequences, and protection by peers. Turku: University of Turku; 2013.

Thornberg R, Tenenbaum L, Varjas K, Meyers J, Jungert T, Vanegas G. Bystander motivation in bullying incidents: To intervene or not to intervene? West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(3):247–52.

Forsberg C, Thornberg R, Samuelsson M. Bystanders to bullying: fourth- to seventh-grade students’ perspectives on their reactions. Res Pap Educ. 2014;29(5):557–76.

WIDE1. research done 1994/5. 1994/5.

Creswell JW. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 4th ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.; 2012.

Creswell JW. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2009.

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research a practical guide for beginners. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2013.

Ho R. Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall; 2006.

Book   Google Scholar  

Lambe LJ, Cioppa VD, Hong IK, Craig WM. Standing up to bullying: A social ecological review of peer defending in offline and online contexts. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;45:51–74.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Addis Ababa University for its financial support. We would also like to thank teachers at primary and secondary schools in East Gojjam Administrative Zone for their invaluable assistance in collecting data. Finally, we would like to acknowledge principals for facilitating the data collection and all participants of this study for their time and patience in responding to our interviews and questionnaires.

Addis Ababa University financially supported this study. However, the University did not have any role in the design of the study, data collection, and analysis, as well as in the interpretation of data and writing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Institute of Educational and Behavioral Sciences, Debre Markos University, Debre Markos, Ethiopia

Temesgen Demissie Eijigu

School of Psychology, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Seleshi Zeleke Teketel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

TDE has been involved in the study concept and design, data acquisition, drafting the manuscript, administrative, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the data and final proof of the manuscript. SZT has been involved in the study concept and design, technical and study supervision, and manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Temesgen Demissie Eijigu .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The Department of Psychology at Addis Ababa University approved the study procedures for the dissertation, of which this manuscript is part of the dissertation. Psychology Department Ethical Committee exempted from requiring ethical clearance since this study collected data from schools with no physical or psychological harm on participants. Written informed consent was obtained from parents, and informed assent was obtained from student participants. The questionnaires were anonymous and fictitious names were assigned to interviewees. No payment was made to all participants, and interviews were conducted individually by the corresponding author.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

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.

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.

Eijigu, T.D., Teketel, S.Z. Bullying in schools: prevalence, bystanders’ reaction and associations with sex and relationships. BMC Psychol 9 , 183 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

Download citation

Received : 13 November 2020

Accepted : 09 November 2021

Published : 22 November 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00685-5

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

• Passive bystanding
• Bystander reaction

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

• General enquiries: [email protected]

•   PEARL Home
• 04 University of Plymouth Research Theses
• 01 Research Theses Main Collection

Bullying in a primary school : a case study

Bullying has become a significant issue for schools and one that has attracted the media spotlight. It has also received considerable attention from the research community since the late 1980s following the tradition established through the work of many Scandinavian researchers. Much of the research has been longitudinal and sought to illuminate the experience of children who bullied or were being bullied. There has been considerably less research into teachers' and parents' understanding and experience of bullying between school children. This thesis seeks to rectify that situation by examining the views of Year 5 and 6 pupils, teachers and a sample of parents from a case study primary school. The research was conducted over a period of two years in a school referred to under the pseudonym Nicholas Street. The thesis investigates three questions: first, the meaning that key parties attribute to the term bullying; second, the nature of their experience in the context of the school; and third, their views on how it is handled or resolved. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and reinterviews with teachers; unstructured and semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and a selection 'game' with pupils and semi-structured interviews and questionnaires with parents. All interviews were audio-taped and transcribed onto a computer database (Hyperqual) and questionnaire responses from pupils were analysed with the support of computer technology (SPSS). The inductive analysis commenced with a case study of a single pupil, Lorraine. This provided the reference point for the structured analysis of bullying issues in the wider context of the school. Findings include: 0 the differing ways that bullying was defined by the parties; 0 the emergent distinction between a relationship that was founded on bullying and an action that might be described as bullying; 0 that bullying usually occurred between pupils in the same class and was not a clandestine activity nor unknown to non-participants (the secretive image); 0 that, although there was a degree of satisfaction reported by all parties concerning methods deployed in handling bullying, there was also inconsistency, confusion and a lack of awareness of policy.

Collections

Commissioning body.

The following license files are associated with this item:

• Original License

• A winning model: Bogotá’s charter schools boost students’ academic and social-emotional skills

Media Inquiries

• 615-322-6397 Email

Latest Stories

• Jessica Logan: a meta-scientist on a mission
• Update your personal devices to the secure VUIT Wi-Fi network

Apr 5, 2024, 2:04 PM

By Jenna Somers

Researchers at Vanderbilt University and William & Mary may have found a promising approach to education reform that could help provide high-quality education to students from low-income families. Results from a study on the quality of public-private partnership schools in Bogotá, Colombia—known as schools in administration—demonstrate that students enrolled in these schools have higher scores in cognitive and social-emotional skills than students of similar socio-economic and demographic backgrounds who did not enroll in these schools. Parents and guardians also reported higher satisfaction with the schools in administration and a lower likelihood of transferring to another school.

Much like charter schools in the United States, schools in administration are privately managed but publicly funded. Colombia seeks to leverage both sectors to more efficiently use public resources to provide a better-quality education to students from low-income backgrounds. To ensure the quality of these schools, the government holds them to the same accountability standards as public schools. Furthermore, non-profit organizations selected by the government to manage these schools must demonstrate prior experience managing high-quality private schools.

“The benefits in cognitive and social-emotional outcomes for students at these schools could potentially shift the approach to public education in Colombia. Based on the positive results for students and the satisfaction of parents, these schools not only deliver a quality education, but they promote community confidence,” said Felipe Barrera-Osorio , the study’s principal investigator and associate professor of public policy, education, and economics at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development .

Students’ cognitive skills—those related to thinking, learning, and problem-solving—were measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test . Those with superior scores on the test demonstrated better social understanding, emotional health, and well-being. Parents of students in schools in administration seemed to notice the enhanced quality, as only 10 percent of them indicated a desire to change schools, compared to 37 percent of parents whose children were not enrolled in these schools.

Barrera-Osorio and co-PI Andrew Dustan , assistant professor of economics at William & Mary, note several key benefits of schools in administration that may support positive outcomes for students. These schools employ more full-time psychologists and provide more professional development training to teachers compared to traditional public schools. In particular, teacher trainings focus on classroom management and content, whereas teacher trainings in public schools focus more on coexistence in school and managing socio-emotional characteristics of students. That said, the researchers found that schools in administration and public schools collaborate through teacher networks to improve teaching practices.

While the findings from the study offer much promise for the future of providing cost-effective, quality education to students from low-income families in Colombia, the researchers say it is vital to further study the performance, benefits, and characteristics of schools in administration.

Importantly, this is the first study to compare students who applied to schools in administration and were assigned a spot with students who also applied and did not receive a spot. The Colombian government created a priority index of students based on socio-economic status and demographic background. The researchers formed pairs of students who each had the same score on the priority index. Through a lottery system, one student received a spot in a school in administration and the other student did not. Key to the validity of the findings is that the students’ profiles were identical, except whether they attended a school in administration.

This study was conducted in collaboration with Innovations for Poverty Action Colombia and the Bogotá Secretary of Education. It was supported by a one-year, $400,000 grant from the National Science Foundation.

Keep Reading

Peabody Scholars share guidance to inform school voucher policy

Education, bullying, mental health, school gun violence top list of parental concerns for their children: poll

Welsh’s study reveals the importance of parental trust in schools for reducing exclusionary discipline

Explore story topics.

• Education and Psychology
• Felipe Barrera-Osorio
• Ideas In Action
• Peabody College
• Peabody global engagement
• peabody-home

Small Study Suggests Ozempic Relative May Slow Parkinson's

Small Study Suggests Ozempic Relative May Slow Parkinson's

By Robin Foster HealthDay Reporter

THURSDAY, April 4, 2024 (HealthDay News) -- Could a medication similar to the blockbuster weight-loss drugs Ozempic and Wegovy slow the ravages of Parkinson's disease?

A new, small study suggests it could: Over the course of a year, a group of French researchers followed 156 people with early Parkinson’s who were randomly given lixisenatide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist made by Sanofi, or a placebo.

What did they discover? Parkinson’s symptoms like tremor, stiffness, slowness and balance got worse in those taking the placebo but not in those taking the drug.

Experts said the findings are a good starting point for future research on the drug's powers against the movement disorder.

U.S. Cities With the Most Homelessness

It is not a slam dunk, but it is “nibbling at the edges of disease modification,” Dr. Michael Okun , a Parkinson’s disease expert at the University of Florida who was not part of the study, told the New York Times.

Dr. Hyun Joo Chu , from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said the study was “very important,” but she cautioned the early research was only designed to test a hypothesis.

“There are many, many examples of very promising Phase 2 trials,” she told the Times. “People get very excited, and then it doesn’t pan out.”

Not only that, but more than half of the patients suffered from nausea and vomiting, possibly because the researchers started with the highest dose instead of gradually increasing the dosage. When a third of patients had side effects that became intolerable, the investigators halved their dose.

For the researchers, led by Dr. Wassilios Meissner of the University of Bordeaux and Dr. Olivier Rascol of the University of Toulouse, it wasn't that far-fetched to think a GLP-1 drug might slow Parkinson’s.

Studies have found that people with type 2 diabetes are at increased risk for Parkinson’s disease, Rascol told the Times . But that increased risk drops in those who take a GLP-1 drug to treat their diabetes.

He added that studies of brain tissue from deceased Parkinson’s patients have revealed abnormalities related to insulin resistance, which is what GLP-1 drugs treat.

While the researchers said they want to do a larger and longer study, Sanofi withdrew the drug in the United States and has started withdrawing it worldwide. The move was made for business reasons, a company spokesman told the Times .

More information

The National Institute on Aging has more on Parkinson's disease .

SOURCE: New England Journal of Medicine , April 4, 2024; New York Times

Copyright © 2024 HealthDay . All rights reserved.

Join the Conversation

Tags: Parkinson's disease

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

RFK Jr.’s Mixed-Up Messaging on Jan. 6

Susan Milligan April 5, 2024

EXPLAINER: Rare Human Case of Bird Flu

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder April 5, 2024

Friday’s Northeast Earthquake, Explained

Steven Ross Johnson April 5, 2024

The Dark Clouds Looming Over the Eclipse

Blowout: Jobs Gains Defy Expectations

Tim Smart April 5, 2024

‘Unity Ticket’ a No-Go for No Labels

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder April 4, 2024

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
• Maedica (Bucur)
• v.8(2); 2013 Jun

Bullying among High School Students

Delia nursel tÜrkmen.

a Uludağ University, Medical Faculty, Department of Forensic Medicine, Council of Forensic Medicine, Bursa Morgue Department, Bursa, Turkey

Mihai Halis DOKGÖZ

Suzana semra akgÖz.

c Çanakkale 18 Mart University, Medical Faculty, Department of Biostatistics, Çanakkale, Turkey

Bogdan Nicolae Bülent EREN

d Council of Forensic Medicine of Turkey, Bursa Morgue Department, Bursa, Turkey

Horatiu Pınar VURAL

e Uludag University, Medical Faculty, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Bursa,Turkey

Horatiu Oğuz POLAT

f Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Social Studies Applied Unıt, Begun Violence Prevention and Research Center, Cleveland-Ohio, USA

Objective: The main aim of this research is to investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviour, its victims and the types of bullying and places of bullying among 14-17 year-old adolescents in a sample of school children in Bursa, Turkey.

Methodology: A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was conducted among class 1 and class 2 high school students for identification bullying.

Results: Majority (96.7%) of the students were involved in bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims. For a male student, the likelihood of being involved in violent behaviours was detected to be nearly 8.4 times higher when compared with a female student.

Conclusion: a multidisciplinary approach involving affected children, their parents, school personnel, media, non-govermental organizations, and security units is required to achieve an effective approach for the prevention of violence targeting children in schools as victims and/or perpetrators.

INTRODUCTION

World Health Organization defines bullying as a threat or physical use of force, aiming at the individual, another person, a specific community or group which can result in injury, death, physical damage, some development disorders or deficiency. The concept of bullying at school is not new; however it has been increasing in recent years. There is a crucial increase in studies conducted and the number of news on bullying at school in mass media ( 1 - 3 ). Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students. Despite the common assumption that bullying is a normal part of childhood and encompasses minor teasing and harassment ( 4 ), researchers increasingly find that bullying is a problem that can be detrimental to students' well-being ( 5 - 7 ). This report focuses not only on the prevalence of bullying, but also on those subsets of students who reported being the victims of direct, and indirect bullying, and both of them. Different types of bullying may affect different groups of students, occur in different types of schools, or affect student behavior in different ways. These distinctions allow readers to differentiate between students who were either physically (directly) or socially (indirectly) bullied, and also to identify those students who were bullied both physically and socially ( 4 ). Additional analysis describes the characteristics of students affected by these types of behavior and the characteristics of schools in which these behaviors occur. Because of prior research that suggests victims of bullying may resort to aggressive behaviors in response to being bullied, the extent to which reports of bullying are related to victim behaviors such as weapon carrying, physical fights, fear, and avoidance are explored. Finally, for educators, the academic success of students is of paramount importance. For this reason, self-reported academic performance of bullied students is also examined ( 5 , 8 ). The main aim of this research is to investigate the prevalence of bullying behaviour, its victims and the types of bullying and places of bullying among 14-17 year-old adolescents in a sample of school children in Bursa, Turkey. Bullying is a psychological and pedagogical problem connected with public health. It must be solved by various professionals immediately. ❑

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional survey questionnaire was conducted among class 1 and class 2 high school students for identification bullying. Research was planned as sectional descriptive study. All class 1 and class 2 high school students from Bursa provincial center were included in the study. The questionnaire form was created by the experts after literature survey. The questionnaire form prepared consisted of 2 sections. The first section encompassed 7 items concerning sociodemographic characteristics of the family, and the second section had 37 items related to the determination of violence among peers. The questionnaire was administered to students in collaboration with school counselors. In guidance of school counselors, after a brief nondirective description, questionnaire was administered to students wishing to participate as volunteers in the study. Total 6127 students agreed to participate in the study. The questionnaire was performed in resting hours under the supervision of school counselors in classrooms by students themselves. For statistical analysis, SPSS forWindows 13.0 was used. Variables have been presented on the basis of average and standard deviation and frequency (%). Pearson chi-square TEST, Student's t-test, Spearman's correlation analysis, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all tests. ❑

1. Sociodemographic Characteristics

Sociodemographic characteristics, and data related to the students participating in the questionnaire survey were presented in Table ​ Table1 1 .

Sociodemographic characteristics of students participating in the questionnaire surveys.

A total of 6127 participants consisted of 2879 (47%) female, and 3248 (53%) male students. Mean ages of the participants (15.68 ± 0.72 years; range: 14-17 years), female (15.65 ± 0.76 years), and male students (15.71 ± 0.69 years) were also determined. Among participants, mothers of 24 (0.4 %), fathers of 168 (2.8%), and both parents of 5 (0.1%) students were deceased. Parents of 167 (2.8%) students were living apart. Students' mothers (n = 2908, 47.6%) and fathers' education (n = 2046, 33.6%) was primary school in the most of the cases and there was correlation between mothers and fathers' educational levels. (Spearman's correlation cefficient rho = 0.571, p < 0.001). Mothers of the majority of the students (81.1%; n = 4972) were housewives, and fathers of 17% (n = 1040) of the students were jobless. Mothers of 922 students (15%) were housewives, while their fathers were jobless as reported by the students themselves.

2. Students involved in Violence as Aggressors and Victims

Majority (96.7%; n = 5926) of the students were involved in bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims. Most (95.8%; n = 5677) of the total of 5926 students involved in bullying behaviours demonstrated physical aggressiveness (95.8%; n = 5677), emotional harassment (48.5%; n = 2875), and verbal assault (25.3%; n = 1499). While victims of these violent acts were subjected to physical (41.2 %; n = 2441), emotional (64.1%; n = 3801), and verbal abuse (47.3%; n = 2805) (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). The probability of a male student being involved in violence was 8.4 times more frequent relative to a female student (95% of Confidence Interval = 5.5-12.8). Students whose mothers were businesswomen participated in violent acts 1.6-fold more frequently than children of housewives (95% of Confidence Interval = 1.05-2.43).

a. Aggressors

The distribution of types of aggressive behaviour of the students according to gender, and age groups were presented in Figure ​ Figure2. 2 . When compared with the female students, male students exerted physical violence, emotional assault or verbal abuse more frequently (8.1, 2.6, and 3.1 times more often respectively; p < 0.001 for all types). Frequency of physical, emotional, and verbal violence increased with age (p < 0.001). When compared with a student aged 14 years, a 17-year old student resorted more frequently to physical (almost 2.2 fold increase; p = 0.01), emotional (1.6 fold increase; p = 0.01), and verbal (almost 2 fold increase; p = 0.007) assaults (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

Results of multivariate logistic regression model of the association between three types of aggressors and socio-demographic features.

R - Reference category; NS - No significant

Verbal abuse was observed more frequently (34.9%) among students with university graduate mothers. The probability of verbal violence was 1.5-1.9 times higher among shoolchildren of university graduate mothers when compared with the students whose mothers were of lower educational levels (p < 0.001).

The possibility of emotional bullying exerted by a student whose father working in private/public service sector (employees in hotels, retailers, restaurants, night-clubs, bars, patisseries, movie theaters, beauty salons, casinos, cleaners, etc) was nearly 32.3% lower than a student whose father was employed in other sectors (p = 0.007).

Most (89%) of the children who didn't resort to brute force were not found to be the perpetrators of violence in the neighbourhood. Fifty percent of the children who were frequently or always bullying in school were also detected to exert violence in the neighbourhood, (p < 0.001) (Figure ​ (Figure3). 3 ). Five percent of the students (n = 305) indicated that they were carrying sharp, and cutting instruments like pocket knives, and knives for the purpose of physical assault. Eight percent (n = 253) of the boys, and 2.2% of the girls carried cutting-penetrating instruments like knives, and pocket knives for the purpose of physical assault (p < 0.001).

The distribution of types of victimization related to physical, emotional, and verbal infliction based on gender, and age of the students was presented in Figure ​ Figure4. 4 . A male student was more frequently subjected to physical, emotional, and verbal violence when compared with a female student (almost 2, 1.4, and 2 fold increase respectively; p < 0.001). The possibility of being a victim of physical and verbal bullying decreased with age (p < 0.05). A 15-year-old student suffered more frequently from physical (almost 1.3 – fold increase: p = 0.004), and verbal (almost 1.2 – fold increase: p = 0.035) bullying compared to a 17 year-old student (Table ​ (Table3 3 ).

Results of multivariate logistic regression model of the association between three types of victimhood and socio-demographic features.

The probability of being a victim of violence was nearly 23% times lower for a student having a lycee graduate mother rather than a schoolchild of an illiterate mother (p < 0.05). A schoolchild of an employed mother was almost 1.2 times more likely to suffer from emotional harassment than a child of a housewife (p = 0.001).

Illiterate fathers of 54.9% of schoolaged children were unemployed, while jobless fathers of 30% of the students had dropped out during primary education. Schoolchild of an unemployed father was almost 1.2 times more prone to be victimized emotionally relative to a child of an employed father (p < 0.05).

Both Victimized and Aggresive students

A 41.7% of the physically aggressive students were also victims of physical bullying, while 79.9% of emotionally offensive students were also suffered from emotional harassment. Still 80.7% of the students who exerted verbal violence also suffered from verbal abuse (Figure ​ (Figure5). 5 ). As compared with a female student, male students were almost 2,2 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of physical violence (95% Confidence Interval = 1.9-2.4), 2,3 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of emotional assault (95% Confidence Interval = 2.1-2.6) and 3 times more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of verbal abuse (95% Confidence Interval = 2.5-3.4). As compared with a 17-year-old student, a 15-year old student was almost 1.3 times more likely to be both victim, and perpetrator of physical violence (95% Confidence Interval = 1.1-1.6). As observed in our investigation, the probability of being both victims and perpetrators of physical aggression among schoolchildren of the mothers with a lycée (35%) or university (37.1%) education was at a minimal level. A student raised by a mother graduated from a lycée was 30.4% less likely to be both executers, and victims of physical violence relative to those of illiterate mothers (p < 0.05). ❑

Bullying in schools is an issue that continues to receive attention from researchers, educators, parents, and students ( 4 ). This study focuses not only on the prevalence of bullying, but also on those subsets of students who reported being the victims of physical, verbal and/or emotional bullying.

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Our study population consisted of male students with a mean age of 15.68 ± 0.72 years (range: 14-17 years). As for sociodemographic properties, lower educational level, possesion of a job of inferior quality have been revealed to be important factors in the exertion of bullying behaviours (Table ​ (Table1). 1 ). Prevalence of being both aggressors, and victims was reportedly higher among students aged between 8-16 years. In a study conducted on 62 adolescents aged 16 years, 15% of the male, and 7% of the female students demonstrated violent behaviours. Again, 72 adolescents (12%), 13% of boys, and 12% of the girls were detected to be victims of violence, while 13 adolescents were both perpetrators, and victims of violence. Persistency of being both perpetrators, and victims of violence was investigated among adolescents aged between 8-16 years, and 18 of 38 girls at 16, and 27 of 30 girls at 8 years of age were detected to be victims of violence. Educational levels, socioeconomic status, composition of the families, and changes in the marital status (divorce, re-marriage etc) were observed for a period of 8 years, and a correlation between being a victim of violence at 8 years of age, and infliction of violence at age 16 could not be detected ( 9 ). In compliance with our study, studies performed in Turkey have emphasized that demonstration of violence was encountered mostly among adolescents aged 15-16 years ( 2 , 10 ).

Students involved in violence as aggressors or victims

Majority (99.2%; n = 3223) of male, and female (93.9%; n = 2703) students were detected to be involved in one form of bullying behaviours as aggressors or victims at one time of their lives. For a male student, the likelihood of being involved in violent behaviours was detected to be nearly 8.4 times higher when compared with a female student (p < 0.001). A statistically significant correlation was not found between the involvement in violence, and age of the student, familial unity, level of education, and occupation of the parents (p > 0.05). A total of 5926 students involved in violence, demonstrated physical (95.8%; n = 5667), emotional (48.5%; n = 2875), and verbal (25.3%; n = 1499) bullying behaviours. The students involved in violence were also suffered from physical (41.2%; n = 2441), emotional (64.1%; n = 3801), and verbal (47.3%; n = 2805) bullying behaviours (Figure ​ (Figure1). 1 ). A survey conducted in 1994, 1998, and 2002 in Lithuania detected that one in every 3 children were the victims of various types of violence exerted regularly by their peers. (During all three surveys conducted in 1994, 1998 and 2002, about one in three students reported that they had been a victim of regular bullying. A higher percentage of boys (36%) reported being bullied than girls (32%, p < 0.05). This study demonstrated that students living in rural areas were 1.5 times more frequently bullied than those in the cities, and 40% the boys and 28% of the girls inflicted violence on their peers. When incidence rates of bullying in different countries were examined, the highest rate was detected in Lithuania, followed by Austria, Swiss, Germany, and Russia in decreasing frequency ( 11 - 14 ).

The incidence of physical, emotional or verbal violence by a male student was found to be higher (8.1, 2.6, and 3.1 times more frequent, respectively) in comparison with a female student (p < 0.001). Usage of physical, emotional, and verbal violence increased with age (p < 0.001). When compared with a student aged 14 years, a 17-year old student resorted more frequently to physical (almost 2.2 – fold increase; p = 0.01), emotional (1.6 fold increase; p = 0.01), and verbal (almost 2 fold increase; p = 0.007) assaults.

A concordance was detected between lower educational level of the family, and verbal, physical, and emotional aggression. Students with employed parents were found to be more prone to resort to physical bullying. In a study, 5% (n = 305) of the students reported that they had carried cutting, and penetrating instruments such as pocket knives, and knives with the intention of bullying. An 8% (n = 253) of the boys, and 2.2% (n = 52) of the girls using physical violence carried cutting, and penetrating instruments such as pocket knives, and knives for the intention of bullying (p < 0.001). A survey among 500 children detected evidence of bullying in 31.4% of the cases. In schools for girls, the incidence of bullying was detected to be 18%, while it was 38.2% in coeducational mixed schools. The incidence of bullying increased with age, and higher grades. Bullying was mostly encountered in the form of verbal violence such as nicknaming, followed by abusive language, rumoring, insult, and isolation Infliction of physical harm was seen at a rate of 16 percent. Feeling oneself badly, desiring to be left alone, and tearing his/her clothes etc. were also observed. School phobia, vomiting, and sleeping disorders were seen in these children. Frequently, headache was seen to be a cardinal symptom of girls, and boys subjected to bullying behaviours ( 15 ).

Statistically significant correlations were seen between types of physical, emotional, and verbal bullying and gender, and age of the students. The likelihood of being a victim of physical, emotional, and verbal bullying was higher among male students rather than female students (almost 2, 1.4, and 2 fold increase respectively; p < 0.001). A study demonstrated that physical and verbal victimization decreases with age (p < 0.05). Minimal degree of physical victimization was observed among students whose mothers were lycée (36.3%), or university (38.8%) graduates. The student whose parents had a lower level of education carries a higher potential of being a victim of bullying. In the study group where male students with a mean age of 13 consisted 50 % of the study population, cases were attending primary (40%), secondary (26%) , and higher levels of (34%) education These students were subjected to violence at least once for a duration of one year. This incidence was 3 times higher than those found in other studies. Male students were more frequently involved in bullying behaviours. In higher education male students were more frequently involved in bullying behaviours, while in primary, and secondary education there was no difference between genders. The frequency of bullying behaviours decreased in higher grades. Bullying was more frequently observed in families with separated parents or in the absence of two biologic parents ( 16 ).

Students both as victims and perpetrators of violence

Many students were detected to be both victims, and perpetrators of physical (41.7%), emotional (79.9%), and verbal (80.7%) violence (Figure 6).

Compared with a female student, the probability of being both perpetrator, and victim of a physical, emotional, and verbal bullying for a male student was increased by 2.2 (p < 0.01), 2.3 (p < 0.001) and 2.3 (p < 0.001) times, respectively. The incidence of being a victim decreased with age. Among students whose parents were lycée (35%) or university (37.1%) graduates, physical aggressiveness, and victimhood have been observedly at a minimal level. Compared with a schoolchild of an unemployed father, and a housewife mother, the child of employed parents was 1.6-fold more likely to be both victim, and a perpetrator of a verbal bullying (p = 0.001). According to investigations conducted in Italy, boys were resorting to bullying more frequently than girls, while both genders were becoming victims of violence with a similar incidence. Boys were more likely to inflict direct physical aggression with the intent of causing physical harm, whereas girls were more likely to inflict indirect forms of aggression with the intent of causing psychological harm. However, there were no significant gender differences in direct verbal aggression. Researches have indicated that bullying is often exerted in the classrooms, but it is also encountered in other parts of the school, like corridors, and rest rooms, as well. Overall, 56.7% of all students had never been bullied in the last 3 months, 13.9% were bullied once or twice, 14.7% sometimes and 14.7% once a week or more often. Girls tended to be victimized more than boys; 34_5% of girls, and 24_8% of boys, had been victimized sometimes or more often. Boys were significantly more likely to suffer from various types of direct bullying, whereas girls were slightly more likely to suffer from indirect forms of bullying (e.g. being rejected, rumours spread about them). Significant differences emerged as for types of direct bullying, especially for being threatened and marginally for being physically hurt. There were no significant gender differences between direct verbal and indirect bullying; boys were almost as likely as girls to suffer from indirect bullying. An 18.5 % of the girls, and 20.4 % of the boys were subjected to bullying behaviours exerted by both girls, and boys. Over half of all students had bullied others, and nearly half had been bullied in Italy. Boys bullied more than girls, and girls were somewhat more likely than boys to be bullied sometimes or more often ( 17 ).

In conclusion, a multidisciplinary approach involving affected children, their parents, school personnel, media, non-govermental organizations, and security units is required to achieve an effective approach for the prevention of violence targeting children in schools as victims and/or perpetrators. In consideration of the impact of child's familial, and environmental cultural factors, and school ambiance on violence as well, educational efforts should be exerted both to eliminate potential adversities and also prevent bullying behaviours in schools.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

none declared.

FINANCIAL SUPPORT