LITERATURE REVIEW

Posted: January 4th, 2023

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Overview

The literature review comprises a conceptual framework, accounts of related literature, and a simplified summary of the key assertions of the highlighted studies. The chapter starts with a conceptual framework followed by a full review of literature related to bullying in middle schools. The full review is arranged thematically, starting with the diverse definition of bullying across different social and cultural settings, causes of bullying, manifestation and prevalence in schools, and the interventions of bullying and their levels of effectiveness. The final section of this chapter is the summary, which recaps the major arguments of the literature being analyzed. Essentially, understanding the views, perceptions, and findings of previous researchers and their respondents is the primary focus of this chapter. 

Theoretical Framework

To understand bullying adequately, establishing a theoretical framework is necessary. It provides a scientific structure within which certain phenomena can be illustrated. In this case, several theories, like the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (D’Souza & Gurin, 2016), social control theory (Chan & Wong, 2015), the diathesis-stress model (Swearer & Hymel, 2015), organizational culture theory, the theory of humiliation, dominance theory, and social capital theory (Evans & Smokowski, 2016) can be used to explain the theoretical underpinnings of the bullying phenomenon in school settings, and its impact on academic achievement and disciplinary sanctions. These theories are used to develop a sociocultural theoretical framework that will used to address the research problem and question of this study.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs of theory can be used to explain the factors that motivate teenagers to bully others or behave in a manner that threatens the welfare of others (D’Souza & Gurin, 2016). Conceptually, under normal circumstances, humans are as competitive as other animals in nature. They develop defensive and offensive traits as they grow. Considering that humans are intelligent beings, it is possible to control traits that pose threats to humans or other attributes of nature (Di Stasio, Savage, & Burgos, 2016). In this sense, ones needs may not
necessarily take precedence in the event they are involved in a moral or ethical dilemma.

Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Model (Maslow, 1943)

Similarly, as teenagers grow and are introduced in the midst of their peers, they develop a sense of competitiveness. At times, the urge to compete may manifest in violent or unfriendly ways especially when they are trying to demonstrate their might against their peers, bullying thus occurs during the process of asserting dominance (Di Stasio et al., 2016). As evidenced from such behaviors, therefore, bullying occurs during the process of asserting dominance. Unless such individuals are made to understand that such instincts are irrelevant and unwelcome within the human faction, they can overrun one’s control and make them abusive or violent (Maslow, 1943). Control does not necessarily mean denial of certain needs; rather, they mean that an individual must always be willing to compromise their desires for the sake of accommodating others within the society (Di Stasio et al., 2016).

As illustrated in the Maslow’s Hierarchy Needs model in figure 1 above, teenagers in high school are at a stage where attempts to belong, self-actualize, and esteem are happening; such needs manifest through attempts to dominance, where they go to the extremes of bullying others. At times, therefore, a scientific approach may be required to guide these students through their respective body desires to ensure they are properly inculcated into their intellect (Jacobson, Kapur, & Reimann, 2016). Conceptually, this theory can be utilized to enhance the understanding of the underlying concept on bullying in schools. It provides a framework within which the reader can internalize the reasoning behind bullying and why it can be fatal if neglected by parents, teachers, and respective authorities during the schooling phase (D’Souza & Gurin, 2016). Based on these arguments, therefore, the theory can be considered relevant for the understanding why bullying occurs in learning institutions.

Social control theory, in the form advanced by Travis Hirschi in 1969 is applicable in explaining offending-victimization nexus in the bullying phenomenon. It posits that the decision to engage in crime and other antisocial behaviors is influenced by the strength of social bonds, and therefore, individuals that are weakly bonded socially to their society are likely to exhibit delinquent behavior (Chan & Wong, 2015). This theory recognizes bullying as a form of delinquent and antisocial behavior that people exhibit in different environments and not in others. Chan and Wong (2015) used this theory to explain victimization and perpetration of bullying in secondary schools. According to this theory, the four main social bonds include belief, involvement, attachment, and commitment, with each type having a unique contextualization attribute. For instance, belief is the recognition and respect for the moral validity of extant social norms, values, and regulations that are conventional in a specific community or society. Such respect breed adherence to social accepted behavioral norms and practices to promote acceptance and avoid sanctions socially. Involvement in prosocial behavior is an indication of the sufficient internalization and deep entrenchment of prosocial values, norms, and behavioral practices (Chan & Wong, 2015). Attachment is an indication of the strength of a bond between an individual and other significant people, groups and institutions surrounding the individual. In this case, the level of attachment with parents and family, school, and deviant peers influences the likelihood of developing a bullying behavior in school-going students. Similarly, commitment, like attachment, dictates the susceptibility of an individual in engaging in bullying behavior (Chan & Wong, 2015). A student that is weakly committed to his or her parents, family, school, and deviant colleagues is likely to become a bully at school. The theory posits that the culture in an organization influenced the behavior of those in the organization by setting norms, traditions, rules, and expectation for the organization’s members. in the bullying context, the school climate or culture dictates the emergence, enactment, and persistence of the bullying behavior by encouraging, being tolerant or placing sanctions on bullying behavior (Chan & Wong, 2015). This theory will help explain why bullying is prevalent in some schools and not in others, and why a student can exhibited bullying in one school and not in another.   

The diathesis-stress model helps explain the dynamics of the bullying behavior from a socioecological perspective. The model presupposes bullying as a stressful event of life that leaves indelible marks on the perpetrator, victim, and observer (Swearer & Hymel, 2015). This model draws from the social ecological theory the conceptualization of the bidirectional interaction between individuals and the environment around them, which influences their development as human beings. According to the model, environmental stressors and vulnerabilities that are inherent in an individual can cause psychological disorders (Swearer & Hymel, 2015). In this regard, bullying is a stressful relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, which thrives in an encouraging environment and is a stressful event capable of eliciting negative psychological outcomes. The diathesis component of the model explains the genetic predisposition of bullies that has been associated with 5-HTTLPRE, which is a serotonin transporter gene responsible for regulating the linkage between stress and depression in individuals. This model is applicable in this study because it indicates that some individuals are genetically predisposed to become bullying, which in facilitative conditions.

Organizational culture theory explains the cultural context in which bullying occurs. According to this theory, the member of an organization exhibit certain behaviors that are dictated and regulated by the norms, traditions, values, and expectations in the organization (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). The school culture and climate are the versions of organizational culture in a school setting. It is has a bidirectional relationship with bullying behavior in that, bullying behavior can lead to the entrenchment if a bullying culture in a school if it is not stemmed and can be controlled by the school culture as well, particularly when it is against the schools traditions, values, expectations, and unwritten rules (Evans & Smokowski, 2016).    

The theory of humiliation addresses the feeling of derogation that emanates when one individual publicly reveals the inadequacies of another in an unjustified manner. It was advanced by Lindner and explains humiliation as a derogation of the human right to respect and recognition as an individual. According to the theory, bullies reveal the inadequacies of their weaker peers to create in them a feeling of helplessness and powerlessness through persistent displays of behaviors and actions embarrassing that are embarrassing to individuals (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). Evans and Smokowski (2016) differentiates humiliation from shame by noting that noting that humiliation is enacted by an external agent, while shame can be exerted on self in the absence of an external perpetrator. However, humiliation can generate inward feelings taking the form of depression. According to the theory, humiliation disrupts social cohesion in the school environment by pitting one group of students against another and creating a humiliator that perpetrates humiliating deeds, a victim of humiliation, and a witness of the humiliating acts (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). This theory is applicable in this study because it will help explain the motivation behind the bullying behavior and its adverse outcomes.

The dominance theory is derived from the social dominance theory, which posits that societies are structured hierarchically based on groupings premised on age, gender, ethnicity, race, social class, with the dominant groups oppressing, discriminating against, and perpetrating injustices against the minority or less-dominant ones (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). The social dominance theory and the dominance theory convert in the bullying context when they agree that youths bully each other to gain social dominance and maintain their social status at the group and individual levels. Bullying confers a high social status by assigning successful and strong bullies as ringleaders and entrenching dominance through the repetitive bullying behavior against the weak, oppressed, and less powerful individuals (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). In turn, individuals are socialized into a bullying groups and the bullying culture making them reluctant to leave the group for fear of being the next bullying victim of their group. The dominance theory will contribute to this study the explanation of the motivation for and the sustenance of the bullying behavior exhibited by students against their peers.

Social capital theory view social relationships as a form of capital, akin to economic and cultural capital, that can be leveraged to accrue social benefits. Introduced by Bourdier and Coleman in the 1980s, the social capital theory posits that when individuals invest in social relations, they do so to access the resources ingrained in such relationships to accrue mutual benefits (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). These resources include the reinforcing of self-identity and self-worth by being a group member, attaining social credentials that enhance social status, gaining power and influence over others, and accessing information about prospects and options. Bullies posses much social capital compared to bullying victims through an inclusion-exclusion mechanism, which in turn, influences the perpetration and victimization of bullying in schools (Evans & Smokowski, 2016). For this reasons, bullying engage in their bullying behavior to acquire perceived popularity as a form of social capital, while bullying victims are victimized because they feel disempowered socially in the presence of the powerful and popular bullies, and may engage in bullying behavior against their weaker peers fail social capital and stop their victimization. This theory is useful in this study because it will help explain the motivation behind the bullying behavior in youngsters and the process of victimization by bullies.

These theories explain bullying and its outcomes from a multidisciplinary perspective, including cultural, social, psychological perspectives, which reinforce the notion as being a complex phenomenon. For this study, a sociocultural theoretical framework that employs the diverse social and cultural settings in which bullying occurs shall be applied in this study to explain the bullying behavior in schools and its impact on academic performance and preventative interventions in a middle school setting. The sociocultural lens will help capture and explain the dynamics of bullying in diverse school settings, which in turn, will contextualize the bullying behavior in middle schools in the United States.     

Related Literature

A study conducted by Mehta, Cornell, Fan, & Gregory (2016) to find out the differences in the perceptions of middle and high school students indicated that most of them agree that bullying interferes with the commitment of students in their academics and extracurricular activities. Previously, various accounts of literature have been conducted in line with the persistent cases of bullying in schools. Arguably, a comprehensive analysis of the status on the bullying in schools is critical in addressing the possibility of redundancy before embarking on answering the research questions regarding this subject. Analyzing a broad section of literature facilitates helps in identifying the gaps existing in research attributed to bullying (Gordon, 2018). All factors considered, bullying in schools remains a threat on education even after extensive developments and transformation in the education sector (Manna, Calzone, Adinolfi, & Palumbo, 2019). The literature review will assist the researcher establish if previous recommendations have been implemented in addressing inherent problems in the education system. If previous recommendations have not been implemented successfully, the current research is expected to provide a clear illustration on viable preventive approaches in the future.

Definitions of Bullying

Bullying is a deep-rooted concept that is characterized by aggressive behavioral attributes. As such, conceptualizations and perceptions regarding these behaviors may vary significantly, yet there is agreement that a consistent definition is critical for the recognition, reporting and cessation of the vice (Eriksen, 2018; Manna, Calzone, Adinolfi, & Palumbo, 2019). According to the department if education in the United Kingdom, ‘bullying is behavior by an individual or group, repeated over time, that intentionally hurts another individual or group, either physically or emotionally” (Smith, 2018, p. 422). Margevičiūtė (2017) provided broader and numerous definitions of bullying by explaining it to be an intentional aggressive and delinquent behavior that was aimed at creasing discomfort and pain and usually comprised acts, such as ignoring, pestering, silent treatment, verbal abuse, and harassment. Another definition of bullying is a repeated exposure to negative actions by one individual onto another. Margevičiūtė (2017) gives another definition from a theoretical perspective by terming bullying as a pedagogical and psychological problem that is preconditioned by an individual’s low emotional understanding of society, thus often affects children, involves upbringing, and is a public health issue. Bullying can also be viewed as an unprovoked intentional and continuous insults aimed at creating a permanent model of insults and abuses, which can be physical or verbal (Margevičiūtė, 2017). However, Margevičiūtė (2017) contends that bullying is an English word that has no equivalent in some languages, which creates definitional challenges when studying bullying in diverse cultures other than western ones or those related to the English language. For instance, Lithuanians equate bullying to teasing, humiliating, molesting, insulting, and harassing because they do not have a specific word for the vice. In oriental cultures in countries like, Japan, China, and South Korea, studies on bullying have emerged lately that reveal their equivalents of the word and phenomenon. Thomas, Connor and Scott (2015) reinforced the components of the definition of bullying as being repetition, intension and balance of power and used them to equate traditional bullying and cyberbullying, which had emerged due to the proliferation of digital technologies and social media. They regard bullying as peer aggression that seeks to cause relational, social, physical, and verbal harm and define cyberbullying as the perpetration of the vice using digital technologies (Thomas, Connor & Scott, 2015).

However, research has evidenced that different parties view bullying differently, thus yielding diverse definitions of the term and increasing the definitional controversy and debate. Hellström, Persson and Hagquist (2015) noted that although intention and power imbalanced formed the basis of defining bullying and distinguishing it from other aggressive behaviors, these concepts were difficult to operationalize, especially when dealing with the perceptions of children. The definitions of bullying by adolescents were influenced by the hurtfulness, self-interpretation, and personal descriptions of the bullying act, which differed across individuals. This means that what one youngster perceives as bullying may be viewed as a tease or joke by another, with Hellström, Persson and Hagquist (2015) indicating that young people do not emphasize the intention of the act highly. This means that bullying can be done intentionally or unintentionally, provided it hurts the feelings of an individual. However, adults have a more structured approach to defining bullying by incorporating several and diverse parameter. Similar observation were reported by Eriksen (2018) when investigating the differences of bullying definition among researchers, educators, schools’ staff, and students, which revealed that the definition of bullying by teachers and students differed from that of researchers, thus complicating intervention measures. Based on his findings from a schools’ survey in eastern Norway that involved 455 participants, Eriksen (2018)  revealed that educators and support staff had difficulties in identifying whether an incident fitted the bully description or not, thus making their definitions inconsistent from those of researchers. The study noted that the definition used by teachers and school staff was powerful and rigid, although it left gaps and ambiguity that made its application in the school context difficult and challenging (Eriksen, 2018). However, this definition helped the educators align the vice to the set expectations of students’ behavior, while combining the responsibilities of schools towards mold the behavior of students and promoting their rights. Teachers used this definition to help students differentiate between teasing and bullying and use the bullying term correctly (Eriksen, 2018). However, Eriksen (2018) went on to note that students often overused the term bullying to persuade their teachers to investigate bullying-related incidences because they realized the power that the term possessed. Consequently, the overuse of bullying as a term by students tended to diminish it impact, especially for the students that genuinely needed helps, because educators and school staff diminish some genuine cases of bullying in schools. However, in the end, Eriksen (2018) concluded that the term bullying possessed power that conferred status and blame, assigned guilt and same, and provided responsibilities and rights, which helped convert policies into practice. 

In this regard, Margevičiūtė (2017) noted that the legal definition of bullying included components connected to education and relationship between the parties, which was not emphases as much by those reporting  the bullying behavior. In the same vein, during a field survey, when asked their views about bullying, majority of the interviewees, who were school students, said it was normal to bully new students as a gesture of welcoming them to the school community (Englander, 2017). Furthermore, Englander (2017) further concluded that most stakeholders in schools believe bullying is a sense of awakening students whenever they enter a given school community. Based on these perceptions, bullying is supposed to make the targets stronger and not victimize them. In the same vein, Smith et al. (2016) noted that bullying was an Anglo-Saxon term that was well recognized in northern Europe but did not have an equivalent term in Latin or in eastern countries. The study revealed that bullying was known as pesten and mobbing in the Netherlands and Norway, respectively, while a similar phenomenon was known as wang-ta, bat nat, qifu, and ijime in South Korea, Vietnam, China, and Japan, respectively (Smith et al., 2016). The notable difference in the terms is demonstrated by the Japanese version, ijima, which means a kind of aggressive behavior perpetrated intentionally and collectively, thus emphasiszing the collective nature of the behavior and its likelihood to result in mental distress (Smith et al., 2016). The study also revealed interesting intercultural differences in the conceptualization of bullying acts. For instance, the repeated hitting of a teenager by another during every bread time at school was termed as bullying by 100% of English, and 99% of Canadians, but only 25% of south Koreans (Smith et al., 2016). Nonetheless, this literature indicates that the definitions of bullying are not universal although they have specific components, such as being intentional to produce a negative outcome in others, repetitiveness, and occasioned by a strength or power imbalance.

Causes of Bullying

The causes of bullying have invited significant attention from researchers, psychologists, educators, and parents because of the need to stem the vice before it leads to adverse outcomes. In this regard, several studies have evidenced the sociological, psychological, and biological causes of bullying as a form of aggressive behavior. After studying 234 students drawn from private and public elementary schools in Mianwali in Pakistan, Jan and Husain (2015) unearthed four causes of bullying from a students’ perspective, namely jealousy, seeking revenge, powerfulness, and aggression. A similar study performed by Oliveira et al. (2015) involving 109,104 grade 9 students from public and private schools in Brazil revealed that students were bullies because of their physical appearance, facial appearance, skin color or race, sexual orientation, religion, and region of origin, with these reasons being arranged in order to decreasing frequency. Those that were bullied due to their body image were obese or too thin, too dark, having some form of disability or having a divergent sexual orientation. Jomar, de Oliveira Fonseca, and de Oliveira (2020) focused in sexual orientation as reason for bullying and noted that gay boys were bullied more often compared to gay girls because of the female characteristics that they exhibited and the pressure to conform to the conventional masculine image. Additionally, Chan and Wong (2015) found that negative school experiences, lack of belongingness to the school, lowly-manifested prosocial behaviors, frail family attachment, and thee lack of school cohesion and harmony. The aspects that been studied in detail by several researchers. For instance, a cross-examination on an individual, who identified as a parent of a student in one of the high schools in New York demonstrated that her child found it difficult to adapt to the highly aggressive environment in school therefore causing the child to struggle academically (Englander, 2017). She said that while the rest of the students had fun in aggravating the classroom environment, certain students found it extremely difficult to cope and get a quality education (Sung, Chen, Yen, & Valcke, 2018). Obviously, based on this feedback, certain individuals respond differently to different environment. Unfortunately, according to Tsimtsiou et al. (2017), imposing certain social conditions on all individuals regardless of their perceptions or personalities makes it difficult to express their personalities.

Bullying has a direct correlation with the school climate. Majorly, it emanates from the risk behaviors perpetrated by the students, following their incapacity to behave appropriately (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Risky behaviors among children are a direct result of the foundations they receive once they are admitted in school as well as the overall parental contribution in their upbringing (Hernes, 2016). At times, risky behaviors are caused by the relinquishment of parental care once the children attain a certain age, especially when they are admitted in high school. According to the study by Mischel and Kitsantas (2019), positive perceptions of school climate were associated with high self-esteem and highly reduced levels of bullying perpetration. Perceptions of school climate influenced students’ behavior. The opposite was true whereby, in the case of negative perceptions of school climate, higher cases of bullying perpetration were reported as well as low cases of self-esteem (Lacey et al., 2017). In essence, the research confirmed that the aforementioned attributes were highly intertwined and were all controlled by the prevalence or absence of bullying.

Parents who knew and interacted with their children well understood the root cause when their children showed disinterest in school (Herne, 2017). Meanwhile, parents who lacked a personal relationship with their children lacked a proper understanding of the factors that caused them to lack interest in school (Lacey et al., 2017). Mostly, students always show interest in school as long as there are minimal distractions or impeding factors. Dropping out from school is a two-way menace that affects bullying victims as well as bullies who eventually fail to focus on academics (Lacey et al., 2017).

Arguably, teachers are a bigger threat to the welfare of students when compared to students. They are expected to offer the ultimate protection failure to which students feel threatened and unwanted (Marengo et al., 2018). Involvement of teachers in bullying has been considered dangerous in the growth and development especially because it goes undetected in most cases. It also shows the huge misconception among stakeholders in the education sector regarding bullying (Hernes, 2016). Alarmingly, bullying is only rampant in educational institutions where teachers stay aloof, encourage it among students, or do it themselves.

Critically, students have been observed to find justification on the reasons behind bullying. It is also apparent that the key stakeholders were quick to justify incidents of bullying rather than the effects it had on the victims (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Exploring bullying as a big challenge remains crucial considering education is a highly sophisticated sector where learning is mostly difficult and all students must be accorded the highest level of support humanly possible (Iotti et al., 2020). Learning and living to the full potential should be the goal of every student; however, they need to be guided properly and cautiously. The diversity of the reasons behind bullying indicates that the phenomenon is yet to be understood comprehensively.

Manifestations, Prevalence, and Effects of Bullying in Schools

Several studies have evidenced the different forms that bullying takes and is perpetrated. Jan and Husain (2015) provides more insights by noting that the bullying act involved three parties; the perpetrator, the victim, and the witness, with each playing a specific role and experiencing specific outcomes. Therefore, bullying manifests differently across these players and studies have attempted to explain the relationship between the perpetrator and victim, and the influence such as relationship has on the witnesses of the bullying behavior. Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016) goes on and categorizes witness of bullying behavior as reinforce, upstander, and passive by standers. The reinforcers encourage the bullying behavior by cheering on their bully peers, while the upstanders take some action to stop the bullying. The passive bystanders watch the bullying incidents by take no action to support or reject such behavior. In this regard, bullying occurs in many ways especially through mass peer victimization. Mainly, this occurs against students that seem or behave differently from others (Di Stasio et al., 2016). Mostly, such occurrences are considered as normal, which means minimal preventive actions are initiated. Overtime, victims feel rejected or are forced to conform into a nature that alters their personalities and their sense being (Ybarra et al., 2019). Common examples have been evidenced in class where students jeer when their fellow students attempt to contribute to questions raised by the teachers or seek clarifications when they fail to understand the concepts being taught.

A relationship between students’ perceptions of peer victimization and their conduct towards their peers exists. Accordingly, most students considered it normal rather than a form of bullying; besides, they were observed to victimize their peers, which they felt was normal and harmless (Klomek et al., 2016). A study was conducted on physical, verbal and relational victimization; however, the study confirmed that verbal abuse especially through insults and jeers were common and mostly tolerated in school, on the downside, most victims suffered dejection and low self-esteem (Klomek et al., 2016). From this study, it is apparent a huge misconception on bullying exists in the education sector and its effects ruin the lives of victims without the knowledge of the authorities (Klomek et al., 2016). Smith and Robinson (2019) investigated the manifestation and prevalence of bullying victimization among children from diverse countries and national cultures, and focused on the individualism-collectivism aspects of national culture. The study used data collected from children in from 75 countries with diverse individualistic and collectivistic orientations ranging from scores of 91 and 6 for the United States and Guatemala respectively. Findings by Smith and Robinson (2019) indicated that the hypothesis of higher rates of victimization in individualistic societies because the collectivistic ones inhibited conflict did not hold, while the opposite held true. Moreover, the study revealed a complex relationship between social exclusion and bullying in different national cultures with come countries, like Japan, having normalized social exclusion, and as such, it was not considered as bullying, while in highly individualistic countries, social exclusion could be considered a nonviolent form of bullying (Smith & Robinson, 2019). 

Schools are universal learning institutions where all students must feel accepted regardless of their personalities (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). Additionally, unless the way of life is clearly documented in the terms and conditions provided by the school community and the respective groups in this community, students have no jurisdiction to set unwritten rules that motivate them to bully those that fail to understand such rules (Boston & Warren, 2017). Establishing certain values that create cohesion and a sense belonging in the school environment is paramount in upholding the wellbeing of all students (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). Primarily, ensuring that all students understand these values builds them and gives them an improved sense of esteem. Ultimately, this facilitates a perfect environment that upholds the wellbeing of the students.

The study raising awareness on cyber safety completed by Tsimtsiou et al. (2017) shows that with the advancement of social media, most of the bullies have moved to social media platforms, where they commit cyber bullying against their peers or random social media users by leaking of private and incriminating messages and images. The current cases of cyber bullying have gotten so serious that individuals are falling into depression or committing suicide (Springer, 2018). It is apparent that most social media users have gotten highly careless with social media and are attacking others without considering the psychological ramifications.

Majorly, cyberbullying is rampant because most individuals using social media platforms attack others involuntarily without considering the repercussions, since typing from their desktops makes them feel anonymous (Springer, 2018). Individuals committing cyberbullying are very aware they are bullying real individuals but making individuals understand the consequences that cyberbullying attacks may have on the person being bullied may need to be documented as a way of changing the perceptions of teenagers on bullying (Iotti et al., 2020). Principally, it does not matter where bullying is perpetrated, what matters is the need by individuals conceptualize its drawbacks and why it is a social ill and a moral anomaly.                            Apparently, there is a huge connection between bullying in schools and cyberbullying because they are both perpetrated by individuals within a common age group (Iotti et al., 2020).  Cyberbullying is more of a social scope rather than an educational obligation; however, school offers the best platform where individuals can be educated on cyberbullying as an aspect that causes tremendous psychological damages on the victims (Springer, 2018). Essentially, understanding all attributes that offend or cause pain to others fosters a sense of responsibility and accountability on their actions (Leemis et al., 2019). Clearly, this makes cyber bullying an important aspect of the school curriculum. It is also in school that students have access to the internet, technological devices, and the time to engage with others on social media platforms (Leemis et al., 2019). 

Bullying is prevalent in schools across the world, and more evidence is emerging from the less-studied locations outside the western world. Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) provided insights into the prevalence of bullying in western countries and placed it between 4% and 9% for the bullies and between 9% and 25% for bullying victims. Moreover, 35% of children between 12 and 18 years old perpetrated bullying and were bullying victims as well, indicating that a youngster could be a bully in one circumstance and a victim of bullying in another. Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) also revealed that 15 of these youngsters were had participated in cyberbullying. In the same vein, Jomar, de Oliveira Fonseca, and de Oliveira (2020) reported on several studies that had revealed the proliferation of bullying in 40 countries, which indicated that bullying was more prevalent in boys than in girls and affected as much as 45.2% and 35.8% boys and girls, respectively. In their study, which focused on bullying based on sexual orientation, Jomar, de Oliveira Fonseca, and de Oliveira (2020) revealed that 42% of homosexual male students in Portugal has been bullied because of their sexual orientation, while 67% of them had witnessed the bullying of other students due to their homosexuality or bisexuality. These students indicated the sexual orientation-motivated bullying was most observed in schools. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, 95% of transgender, bisexual, gay and lesbian students have experienced prejudicial verbal aggression based on their sexual orientation while 65% of them were victims of bullying. This study also reported that the bullying prevalence among schoolchildren was on an upward trend in Brazil, having changed from 5.4% to 7.2% and 7.4% between 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. In the same vein, Jadambaa et al. (2019) conducted a systematic review of publications about the prevalence of bullying and the experiences of bullying perpetration and victimization, which revealed that the annual prevalence of traditional bullying perpetration and victimization among Australian children and adolescents was 5.27% and 15.17% respectively. However, when the prevalence was extended over a lifetime, it escalated to 11.61% and 25.13 % for bullying perpetration and victimization. Notably, this study also revealed that the lifetime prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization stood at 3.45% and 7.02%, respectively, which was much lower that that of traditional bullying. 

The effects of bullying on the perpetrator, the victim and the observer are well documented in literature. An assessment on the differences in the perceptions among middle and high school students indicated that most of them agree that bullying interferes with the commitment of students in their academics and extracurricular activities (Ybarra et al., 2019). Bullying interrupts the learning environment and the sole purpose of being in school which the study demonstrated that the students who bully others think it enhances their sense of status in the societal setting of the school (Ybarra et al., 2019). Nonetheless, the difference in perceptions showed that it could be that bullying is a manifestation of the developmental process of the humans as they encounter various stages of growth (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). From the variation in these perceptions, one would deduce that bullying remains a highly debated and pertinent issue.  Studies completed on the amount of fear bullying causes among students confirm that bullying is highly dangerous on the psychological development of students (Sung et al., 2018). Mostly, the levels of fear vary depending on the degree of bullying and the perceived consequences of rising against bullies. As such, most of the victims are mostly affected by the fear of the actual events of bullying. Bullying thrives due to the perceived fear and intimidation it creates upon the victims (Klomek et al., 2016). Different studies link cases of bullying to in-depth psychological troubles among victims (Sung et al., 2018). In this regard, students evaluated in certain schools on whether they felt safe in school said they were mainly threaten by their peers who bullied them personally (Manna et al., 2019). Students were asked what they thought could be done to change the bullying problem they asserted the need to have the teachers intervene to prevent actions of bullying (Gaffney et al., 2019).

The prevalence of teasing and bullying on the rate of dropout among students can be associated with the safety or comfort of students in school, causing them to flee away from bullies (Lacey et al., 2017). A different study showed that students who were bullied or teased had little or no desire to attend school (Avşar & Alkaya, 2017). Sadly, most of them were too intimidated to explain the reason they hated schools, which subjected them to victimization (Lacey et al., 2017). In the same vein, Yang, Sharkey, Reed, Chen, and Dowdy (2018) consider bullying as a common form of school violence which can result in suspension and other disciplinary sanctions. Mostly, these acts of bullying result in low self-esteem, trauma, and reduced performances in academics and extracurricular activities among victims and offenders. In the study the relations between teasing and bullying and middle school standardized exam performance conducted by Lacey, Cornell, and Konold (2017), they associate bullies with low academic performance. The study concluded that the only thing bullies have to show in school is the command and power they have over the students that fear them (Lacey et al., 2017). Clearly, this confirms the findings obtained by Yang et al. (2018). Unfortunately, incidents of bullying are rarely reported because victims and bystanders are unwilling to be branded as snitches (O’Brien, 2016). The essence of this study is to establish a framework where students solve such issues by themselves by discouraging bullying by themselves as a community of students. Moreover, Jennings et al. (2019) revealed a unique physical outcome of bullying when they reported that bullying perpetration and victimization caused adverse health outcomes among the school-going South Korean adolescents. their findings indicated that such students experienced cases of obesity, rhinitis and asthma, and that the case of asthma worsened with increased verbal bullying. 

Interventions of Bullying and Their Levels of Effectiveness

Understanding the reason students bully others is considered a viable factor in the fight against bullying, which is why we need to recognize that only by understanding why students bully others that the administrators and team can devise viable approaches of dealing with the menace. For instance, according to Iotti et al. (2020), counseling students involved in bullying must be embedded on the factors that motivate their bullying tendencies, which would require the counselor to make them understand that they can achieve the same feeling without bullying or making others to feel down while in school. Obtaining views from different administrators on the reasons people bully others especially in school is paramount in the ultimate fight against bullying (Manna, Calzone, Adinolfi, & Palumbo, 2019; Ybarra et al., 2019). Similarly, the study, “middle school students’ perceptions of school climate, bullying prevalence, and social support and coping” by Mischel & Kitsantas (2019), concludes that enhancing student engagement can significantly improve a school-wide approach where all students can acquire a transformed perspective on the effects of bullying. Subsequently, this means students would take it upon themselves to deal with bullying with a limited intervention from the teachers or school management (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Understanding that the school setup is a community where all students must feel accepted would create a safer and motivating environment for the purpose of their academics and extracurricular activities (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). Consequently, students would uphold the wellbeing of all students and bullies would have no place in the school community.

Encouraging students to protect each other without imposing unnecessary rules is critical in addressing the issue of bullying. As Yang et al. (2018) demonstrates, under the right guidance from the school community, students can efficiently prevent incidents of bullying against fellow students. Bullying persists only when the administration sets the wrong foundation within the school (Yang et al., 2018). Considering that students are good at taking proper guidelines, empowering them to take care of each other is the most efficient approach of dealing with bullying within the school environment (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Besides the enforcement of rules, they can be empowered through open forum education and any means that ensures majority are aware of the detriments of bullying.

The variation in perception the manner in which the school community can deal with bullying is the reason the problem persists (Ybarra et al., 2019). It is thus prudent that all administrators must be trained and vetted on the best approaches of addressing bullying before they can be commissioned to lead academic institutions (Nieves, 2017). Additionally, equipping learning institutions with the necessary tools and professionals could assist in shaping the school environment to prevent incidents of bullying (Avşar & Alkaya, 2017). Clearly, based on those findings, dealing with bullying should not be subjected to a matter of perception; rather, educators must establish a comprehensive model upon which all stakeholders can discourage the menace.

Parents have a significant role to play in averting bullying in schools (Klomek et al., 2016). First, bullies are products of students that have not been raised or guided properly. Additionally, psychologists associate bullying with the tendency of students to seek self-assertion, especially when it is missing from their families (Cho, Hong, Sterzing, & Woo, 2017). The authors further emphasize that properly raised children have a sense of responsibility for self and others. They show empathy towards the plight of others, which makes them protective rather than offensive. In terms of perception, therefore, parents have an obligation to conceptualize their role in bullying among their children. Similarly, the study “How Families and Students Can Take the Lead in Creating Safer School Environments” by King, National Parent Teacher Association and Reiney (2014), demonstrates that Parents Teachers Association (PTA) meetings can be utilized to shape the role of parents in averting bullying in schools. Organizing forums where parents are counseled or educated on their role in preventing bullying can be highly effective in eradicating bullying in their schools (Gaffney, Farrington, & Ttofi, 2019). Inherently, building a framework where all stakeholders play a certain role in addressing the issue without imposing unnecessary rules or force against the students can address the problem of bullying without causing drama of defensiveness among the parties involved (Da Costa, 2017). Ultimately, a change of perception among these parties is key to ensure that all understand the problem and a set of approaches that could be utilized to address it.

Da Costa (2017) conducted a study which demonstrated that besides targeting the students and teachers alone, parents too can be involved actively in the fight against bullying in schools. Currently, parents are aloof to the problem they could play the most important role in averting (Herne, 2016). Understanding their role, therefore, is the challenge. Meanwhile, pointing out a few cases of bullying in schools may never solve the entire problem since most of the cases will always remain unaddressed (Cho et al., 2017). Addressing them by educating the parents, therefore, ensures that all, all stakeholders are wired in a directional manner that ensures that problem is solved efficiently.

In as much as risky behaviors are common among teenagers in high schools, they can be reduced or eradicated completely by initiating corrective influence in their perceptions and way of life. Administrators and parents can gradually mold the foundation of the children by guiding and observing them so that they can be corrected systematically (Hernes, 2016). Correction is a gradual process, which must be established as a culture within a given institution. Imposing certain changes abruptly especially following a report of an escalated bullying incident may not work (Sung et al., 2018). Additionally, although it is easier to punish students involved in isolated cases of bullying, this may never solve the rot within the entire school. Concisely, the students’ community must understand the intricacies of bullying and the reason it is wrong and unacceptable. Understanding the impact of bullying on the school climate can be used to manage any risky behaviors among students considering that most students engage in these behaviors out of shear ignorance (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Subsequently, teachers and the administration must prioritize the establishment of conducive learning environment. Mischel and Kitsantas (2019) further observe that building such an environment is easy and manageable; however, the administration must inculcate this process into the school culture to ensure all stakeholders understand the importance of upholding the welfare of each other.

Treating bullying as a social offense could reduce victimization against students that are involved in bullying (Klomek et al., 2016). The fact that such occasions remain normal and the students who step forward are jeered or victimized is an indication that the underlying perceptions regarding bullying need to be changed (Di Stasio et al., 2016). It shows that the current moral foundation among teenagers may be in question considering most of them consider such actions normal. Therefore, sanitizing bullying in schools where students stand by as their peers bully others is detrimental in the moral foundations of the vast society (Da Costa, 2017). Fundamentally, schools will need to take a rigorous process of rewiring the perceptions of their students to prevent acts of teasing and bullying in schools (Da Costa, 2017).

Additionally, strict punishments such as discontinuation of education for bullies could discourage bullying in schools. (Ybarra et al., 2019). Ultimately, building proper programs, policies and procedures will ensure that teachers are cognizant of the victims of bullying at all times therefore minimizing the affects bullying have on the mental and academic mindset of children abroad (Ybarra et al., 2019). Besides preventing bullies, experts recommend that parents can significantly influence the manner individuals can respond to bullies without calling the authorities because bullies always operate based on the fear and intimidation they inflict against their victims (Ybarra et al., 2019). Fear can at times be caused by memories of certain experiences, lack of innate assurances, or lack of confidence in one’s abilities of self-defense (Mischel & Kitsantas, 2019). Fortunately, proper parental assurance can enhance self-confidence or at least the confidence to speak up in the event of bullying without the fear of being victimized (Manna et al., 2019).

Practically, considering bullying is an innate trait, which is normally acquired over time it is likely that it could be difficult to eradicate completely from any system comprising of many individuals of a common age group. Focusing on multiple aspects of dealing with bullying can, therefore enhance a community of students where individuals can stand against bullies without fear (Manna et al., 2019). Dealing with fear alone can increase chances of fighting bullies, it offers a direct link between potential victims and bullies, and thus makes it easier to deal with the problem. Furthermore, the thought that bullies could be discouraged by the thought that at least one in two victims could stand against them may discourage bullying in certain situations (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017).

Bullies create fear across the majority of students, which reduces opposition whenever they advance against their victims (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). Based on this analogy, creating awareness and empowerment through open-mindedness can give students the necessary incentive to stand against bullies (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017).  Empowering students is sufficient to guide them through the necessary resistance without involving too many parties of converting institutions into correction centers (Iotti et al., 2020). Addressing primitive energy among multitudes creates awareness on the drawbacks of bullying. Nonetheless, most options remain underutilized in as far as fighting bullying is concerned. Charging institutions with the responsibility of addressing bullying through a myriad of approaches including empowering all students can effectively address the menace (Iotti et al., 2020).

An assessment on students’ perceptions demonstrates that they have lost confidence in the teachers to address cases of bullying efficiently (Avşar & Alkaya, 2017). Subsequently, this makes it difficult for them to turn to them for assistance in the event that bullying incidents escalate. When a student was asked why they never reported to the administration whenever they were mistreated by others, the student said it would further sophisticate the problem by triggering victimization from the rest of the students (Lacey et al., 2017). Clearly, solutions can never be achieved by encouraging victims to report bullies to the authorities; instead, a reasonable approach must be established to ensure that students have the power to stand against bullies. Meanwhile, students must be made aware about why they should desist from bullying others. The victims said they received minimal assistance from the teachers and administration and sometimes they were forced to miss schools due to threats from bullies (Nieves, 2017). The information provided implies that inasmuch as bullying is prevalent, it should not involve violence because it would mean the school is failing to provide adequate security to the students.

Learning institutions must prioritize the safety of their students. Cases of students missing school because of the worry of being bullied makes such schools unfit to run the basic curriculum (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). Incidents where bullying involving violence means students have reduced chances of standing for themselves against bullies without getting into fights (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017). The essence of standing against self is not to fight since this does not solve the problem entirely but only creates loopholes for violence (Lacey et al., 2017). Additionally, it endangers students’ lives and threatens their lifeline while in school. Creating an environment where incidents of bullying attracts huge penalties could reduce such cases considerably. Besides, proper guidance is necessary to ensure all stakeholders are united in the fight against bullying (Lacey et al., 2017).

As evidenced in various studies mentioned in this review, bullying can be prevented using various strategies. The methods utilized to prevent bullying depend on the level education. It means that the approaches used to prevent bullying in middle school may differ from methods used to prevent bullying among high school students. Preventing bullying in middle school is easier because it requires simple disciplinary actions (Da Costa, 2017). Furthermore, students in lower grades are always willing to report incidents of bullying without fear of victimization from their peers (O’Brien, 2016). On the other hand, preventing bullying in high school is highly sophisticated since it requires planning and strategy since most cases of bullying are never reported to the relevant authorities (O’Brien, 2016).

It is paramount to stop treating bullying as normal if attempts to end it in learning is anything to go by (Nieves, 2017). Understanding the degree of seriousness of this issue will enable relevant stakeholders to undertake the necessary steps to reduce its effects on the society in general. Young minds must be wired to take responsibility over their actions through proper guidance, counselling, and teaching. Schools must be evaluated constantly based on their suitability to protect their students (Manna et al., 2019). Having incidents of students bullying their peers to the extent of making them run away from school must be prevented and not tolerated. Such actions should cease or more prevention methods should be set in place to deter such activity (Tsimtsiou et al., 2017).

Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) placed the success rate of school-based interventions to bullying at between 20% and 23%, and between 17% and 20% for bullies and bullying victims, although other interventions yielded no significant change or cessation of the bullying behavior. However, Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) advice that interventions should involve the entire school, be implemented with fidelity, intensity, and for an extended period, alongside being evaluated often. They noted that the most successful anti-bullying programs were evidenced in Finland and other Scandinavian countries where the focus was on the bystanders that witnessed the bulling events. Moreover, Menesini and Salmivalli (2017) reiterated the importance of an anti-bullying policy in supporting proven intervention approaches and the use of an accreditation system to advices schools of the most effective anti-bullying programs and intervention approaches.

Summary

The literature revealed that bullying is a complex phenomenon, whose definition was influenced by culture and society. Some acts of bullying were accepted in some cultures and condemned in others. National cultures influenced the perceptions of bullying and western cultures have broader definitions of bullying compared to oriental ones. In this regard, this study will adopt the broader definition used in western countries because the setting of the study is the united states, which is has a multicultural population in schools. The broad definition will help capture the diverse cultures if the students in American schools. Cultural considerations are critical in study bullying in American schools because they are a multicultural environment with an increasing number of students from minority groups that are non-white. Some of these students are Americans of Asian descent, while others are immigrants seeking an American education but will return to their home countries thereafter.

The literature revealed the different and diverse classifications of the active and passive participants in the bullying incidences. These were categorized further as perpetrators, victims, and witnesses of bullying on their experiences and engagement with the bullying phenomenon. it came out clearly from the literature that it is critical to understand the motivation behind each of these groups that promoted engagement in bullying if effective preventative measures that comprehensively address the problem in a school setting are to be devised and implemented. Often, focus is most on the perpetrators and victims, with the witnesses being ignored or receiving minimal research attention. In this regard, a study seeking to understand the bullying phenomenon wholesomely should take the witnesses of the bullying incidences seriously and seek to understand their sentiments. They can be cheerleaders that encourage the bullies to perpetrate their acts on others, or passive bystanders who watch the bullying events unfold without taking any action. They can also be observers that condemn the act and attempt to discourage the vice by either stopping the bully or rescuing the victim.

Fundamentally, just as schools and educational administrators focus on good academic and extracurricular performances, they must also focus on preventing bullying in schools. The literature revealed that bullying incidences affect all the actors, albeit differently. Overall, the effects of bullying are negative, and for this reason, the vice should be discontinued, prevented and discouraged by all the caregivers of students, including parents, teachers, and policymakers. Understanding the negative impacts on students’ performances due to bullying must be amplified within the school system to create awareness on the detrimental of bullying (Nieves, 2017). In this regard, the literature revealed that various attempts have been made by schools to stem the vice with varying levels of success.  

In summary, involving all educational stakeholders in the fight against bullying will ensure that students are properly cultured to protect their peers. Students must as well be educated on bullying and those involved in bullying must be counseled or banned from school. Continued forums are necessary to ensure teachers are protective of their students to that extent of noticing when they are in distress. The literature revealed that the effective measures against the bullying behavior must have a component of early detection of the behavior and its ramifications on students. in this regard, schools should have an early detection mechanism by being close observers of subtle changes in the student behavior and mental state. The silent participants are often ignored and sometimes are the most aggrieved by the bullying behavior, which can be considered a traumatizing event that has longlasting memories and affect aversely, the normal development of students. Moreover, middle school students are in the adolescent phase of life and are transitioning from childhood to adulthood. Therefore, experiencing traumatizing events like bullying may have influences later in the adult life of students once they become adults and leave school. Ultimately, building proper programs, policies and procedures will ensure that teachers are cognizant of the victims of bullying at all times therefore minimizing the affects bullying have on the mental and academic mindset of children abroad. This is because the literature revealed that there are various gaps that require to be addressed by research. The gaps are especially in the area of multicultural school settings, considering that the population of minority student in the United States was increasing and had reached significant levels of the student population.

REFERENCES

Ang, S.H. (2014). Research design for business & management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L., Irvine, C., & Walker, D. (2018). Introduction to research in education (10^th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Attkisson, C.C., & Zwick, R. (1982). The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Evaluation and Program Planning, 5(3), 233-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(82)90074-X

Avşar, F., & Alkaya, S. A. (2017). The effectiveness of assertiveness training for school-aged children on bullying and assertiveness level. Journal of pediatric nursing, 36, 186-190.

Bass, B. I., Cigularov, K. P., Chen, P. Y., Henry, K. L., Tomazic, R. G., & Li, Y. (2016). The effects of student violence against school employees on employee burnout and work engagement: The roles of perceived school unsafety and transformational leadership. International Journal of Stress Management, 23(3), 318-336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/str0000011 

Böckler N., Seeger T., Sitzer P., Heitmeyer W. (2013) School Shootings: Conceptual Framework and International Empirical Trends. In: Böckler N., Seeger T., Sitzer P., Heitmeyer W. (eds) School Shootings. Springer, New York, NY.

Böckler, N., Roth, V., Stetten, L., & Zick, A. (2014). Targeted school violence and the web of causes: Risk factors and the problems of specificity. International Journal of Developmental Science, 8(1/2), 49–51. https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-140146

Boston, C., & Warren, S. R. (2017). The Effects of Belonging and Racial Identity on Urban African American High School Students’ Achievement. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 13, 26-33.

Campbell, A., Taylor, B.J., & McGlade, A. (2016). Research design in social work: Qualitative and quantitative methods. New York, NY: Learning Matters.

Cantrell, M. (2011). Demystifying the research process: Understanding a descriptive comparative research design. Pediatric Nursing, 37(4), 188–189.

Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. (2015). The overlap between school bullying perpetration and victimization: Assessing the psychological, familial, and school factors of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3224-3234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0125-7.

Cho, S., Hong, J. S., Sterzing, P. R., & Woo, Y. (2017). Parental attachment and bullying in South Korean adolescents: Mediating effects of low self-control, deviant peer associations, and delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 63(9), 1168-1188.

Cienkowski, T. (2018). The Economics of School Shootings. Harvard College Economics Review. Retrieved from http://harvardecon.org/?p=3731

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Da Costa, G. (2017). Creating safe spaces and vigilant parents, teachers and caregivers: a way forward for the prevention of child victimization. Servamus Community-based Safety and Security Magazine, 110(5), 34-36.

Datta, P., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2016). Aggressive attitudes and prevalence of bullying bystander behavior in middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(8), 804-816. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21944.

Di Stasio, M. R., Savage, R., & Burgos, G. (2016). Social comparison, competition and teacher–student relationships in junior high school classrooms predicts bullying and victimization. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 207-216.

D’Souza, J., & Gurin, M. (2016). The universal significance of Maslow’s concept of self-actualization. The Humanistic Psychologist, 44(2), 210.

Englander, E. K. (2017). Understanding Bullying Behavior. American Federation of Teachers, Winter.

Eriksen, I. M. (2018). The power of the word: students’ and school staff’s use of the established bullying definition. Educational Research, 60(2), 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2018.1454263.

Evans, C. B., & Smokowski, P. R. (2016). Theoretical explanations for bullying in school: How ecological processes propagate perpetration and victimization. Child and adolescent social work journal, 33(4), 365-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-015-0432-2.

Fortner, L.A. (2012). The Relationship between Childhood Bullying Victimization And Social Competence In Emerging Adulthood. Retrieved from http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/FSU_migr_etd-4835

Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 14-31.

Gordon, J. U. M. (Ed.). (2018). Bullying Prevention and Intervention at School: Integrating Theory and Research Into Best Practices. Springer.

Hair, J.F. (2015). Essentials of business research methods. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Hellström, L., Persson, L., & Hagquist, C. (2015). Understanding and defining bullying–adolescents’ own views. Archives of Public Health, 73(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-3258-73-4.

Herne, K. E. (2016). ‘It’s the parents’: re-presenting parents in school bullying research. Critical Studies in Education, 57(2), 254-270.

Holfeld, B., & Grabe, M. (2012). Middle school students’ perceptions of and responses to cyber bullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(4), 395-413.

Huh, S., Kim, S., Lee, J., Jung, W., Choi, B., & Kim, J. (2019). A study on the school violence experience of children with attention‐deficit hyperactivity disorder in the context of bullying. Asia-Pacific Psychiatry, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/appy.12353

Iotti, N. O., Thornberg, R., Longobardi, C., & Jungert, T. (2020, February). Early adolescents’ emotional and behavioral difficulties, student–teacher relationships, and motivation to defend in bullying incidents. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 59-75). Springer US.

Jacobson, M. J., Kapur, M., & Reimann, P. (2016). Conceptualizing debates in learning and educational research: Toward a complex systems conceptual framework of learning. Educational Psychologist, 51(2), 210-218.

Jadambaa, A., Thomas, H. J., Scott, J. G., Graves, N., Brain, D., & Pacella, R. (2019). Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(9), 878-888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867419846393.

Jan, A., & Husain, S. (2015). Bullying in Elementary Schools: Its Causes and Effects on Students. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), 43-56.

Jennings, W. G., Song, H., Kim, J., Fenimore, D. M., & Piquero, A. R. (2019). An examination of bullying and physical health problems in adolescence among South Korean youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(9), 2510-2521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0885-3.

Jomar, R. T., de Oliveira Fonseca, V. A., & de Oliveira Ramos, D. (2020). Effects of sexual orientation-based bullying on feelings of loneliness and sleeping difficulty among Brazilian middle school students. Jornal de Pediatria. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2020.03.005.

Kelly, P.J., Kyngdon, F., Ingram, I., Deane, F.P., Baker, A.L., & Osborne, B.A. (2018). The Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8: Psychometric properties in a cross-sectional survey of people attending residential substance abuse treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 37(1), 79-86 .

Klein, J., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2012). Relationships between bullying, school climate, and student risk behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(3), 154.

Klomek, A. B., Kopelman-Rubin, D., Al-Yagon, M., Berkowitz, R., Apter, A., & Mikulincer, M. (2016). Victimization by bullying and attachment to parents and teachers among student who report learning disorders and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 182-190.

Lacey, A., Cornell, D., & Konold, T. (2017). The relations between teasing and bullying and middle school standardized exam performance. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 37(2), 192-221.

Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY: Guilford

Leemis, R. W., Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., Mercer Kollar, L. M., & Davis, J. P. (2019). Traditional and cyber bullying and sexual harassment: A longitudinal assessment of risk and protective factors. Aggressive behavior, 45(2), 181-192.

Lopez, G. (2018). 2018 was by far the worst year on record for gun violence in schools. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/2018/12/10/18134232/gun-violence-schools-mass-shootings

Manna, R., Calzone, S., Adinolfi, P., & Palumbo, R. (2019). School bullying as a quality issue in educational institutions. The TQM Journal, 31(2), 274-291.

Marengo, D., Jungert, T., Iotti, N. O., Settanni, M., Thornberg, R., & Longobardi, C. (2018). Conflictual student–teacher relationship, emotional and behavioral problems, prosocial behavior, and their associations with bullies, victims, and bullies/victims. Educational Psychology, 38(9), 1201-1217.

Margevičiūtė, A. (2017). The definition of bullying in compulsory education: from a general to a legal perspective. The definition of bullying in compulsory education: from a general to a legal perspective. Baltic Journal of Law & Politics, 10(1), 205-229. https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2017-0008.

Marsh, L., McGee, R., Nada-Raja, S., & Williams, S. (2010). Brief report: Text bullying and traditional bullying among New Zealand secondary school students. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 237-240.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.

Maunder, R. E., & Crafter, S. (2018). School bullying from a sociocultural perspective. Aggression and violent behavior, 38, 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.010.

Mayer, M. J., & Jimerson, S. R. (2019). School Safety and Violence Prevention : Science, Practice, Policy (Vol. First edition). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Mears, D. P., Moon, M. M., & Thielo, A. J. (2017). Columbine revisited: Myths and realities about the bullying–school shootings connection. Victims & Offenders, 12(6), 939-955. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1307295.

Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, health & medicine, 22(sup1), 240-253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1279740.

Mischel, J., & Kitsantas, A. (2019). Middle school students’ perceptions of school climate, bullying prevalence, and social support and coping. Social Psychology of Education, 1-22.

NAESP. (2019). What is school climate? Retrieved from https://www.naesp.org/sites/default/files/resources/2/Leadership_Compass/2007/LC2007v5n1a4.pdf

Nardi, P.M. (2015). Doing survey research (3^rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Nieves, Y. (2017). The perception of bullying among school administrators: A case study (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

O’Brennan, L. M., & Furlong, M. J. (2010). Relations between students’ perceptions of school connectedness and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 9(4), 375-391.

O’Brien, N. (2014). I didn’t want to be known as a snitch”: Using PAR to explore bullying in a private day and boarding school. Childhood Remixed Journal.

O’Brien, N. (2016). To’snitch’or not to’snitch’: using PAR to explore bullying in a private day and boarding school (Doctoral dissertation, Anglia Ruskin University).

Oliveira, W. A. D., Silva, M. A. I., Mello, F. C. M. D., Porto, D. L., Yoshinaga, A. C. M., & Malta, D. C. (2015). The causes of bullying: results from the National Survey of School Health (PeNSE). Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, 23(2), 275-282. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.0022.2552.

Palaiologou, I., & Needham, D. (2015). Doing research in education: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage.

Peguero, A. A., Connell, N. M., & Hong, J. S. (2018). Introduction to the special issue “School violence and safety.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016680404. 

Psychology Today (2019). Post-traumatic stress disorder. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/post-traumatic-stress-disorder 

Reilly, C. (2012). A Qualitative Study of Overseas Cooperating Teachers Perceptions to Student Teachers Experiences. Masters theses. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=education_theses 

Salcioglu, E., Urhan, S., Pirinccioglu, T., & Aydin, S. (2017). Anticipatory fear and helplessness predict PTSD and depression in domestic violence survivors. Psychological Trauma, 9(1):117-125. doi: 10.1037/tra0000200

Sánchez-Jankowski, M. (2016). Burning dislike: Ethnic violence in high schools. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.

Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Singer, M. M., et al. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 379–394.

Schneider, S. K., O’donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 171-177.

Schuppe, J. (2018). Schools are spending billions on high-tech security. But are students any safer? NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/schools-are-spending-billions-high-tech-security-are-students-any-n875611 

 Smith, D., Roche, E.,  O’Loughlin, K., Brennan, D…,& O’Donoghue , B. (2014). Satisfaction with services following voluntary and involuntary admission. Journal of Mental Health, 23(1), 38-45. doi: 10.3109/09638237.2013.841864

Smith, P. K. (2018). Commentary: Types of bullying, types of intervention: reflections on Arseneault (2018). Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 59(4), 422-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12897.

Smith, P. K., & Robinson, S. (2019). How Does individualism-collectivism relate to bullying victimisation? International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-018-0005-y.

Smith, P. K., Kwak, K., Hanif, R., Kanetsuna, T., Mahdavi, J., Lin, S. F., … & Ucanok, Z. (2016). Linguistic issues in studying bullying-related phenomena: Data from a revised cartoon task. School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and western perspectives, 280-298. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139410878.017.

Springer, M. A. (2018). Warning: Speak at Your Own Risk: First Amendments on Off-Campus Physical, Emotional, or Cyber Bullying. U. Cin. L. Rev., 86, 849.

Stangor, C., Jhangiani, R., & Tarry, H.  (2015). Principles of social psychology. Victoria, Canada. BCcampus OpenEd.

StopBullying (2019). What is bullying? Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/what-is-bullying/index.html 

Sung, Y. H., Chen, L. M., Yen, C. F., & Valcke, M. (2018). Double trouble: The developmental process of school bully-victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 279-288.

Swearer, S. M., & Hymel, S. (2015). Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis–stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4), 344-353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038929.

Texas School Safety Center. (2016). Student fear of violence. Retrieved from https://txssc.txstate.edu/topics/mental-health/articles/student-fear-of-violence 

The National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Indicators of school crime and safety. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/ind_01.asp

Thomas, H. J., Connor, J. P., & Scott, J. G. (2015). Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents–a review. Educational psychology review, 27(1), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7.

Tsimtsiou, Z., Drosos, E., Drontsos, A., Haidich, A. B., Dantsi, F., Sekeri, Z., … & Arvanitidou, M. (2017). Raising awareness on cyber safety: adolescents’ experience of a primary healthcare professional-led, school-based, multi-center intervention. International journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 31(6).

Victory over Violence (2019). School Violence. Retrieved from http://www.vov.com/issues/preventing-school-violence

Walters, A. (2018). Violence in schools: Our failure to protect children. The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter, 34(6), 8-8. doi:10.1002/cbl.30302  

Yang, C., Sharkey, J. D., Reed, L. A., Chen, C., & Dowdy, E. (2018). Bullying victimization and student engagement in elementary, middle, and high schools: Moderating role of school climate. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(1), 54-64.

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