Hubbry Logo
BullyingBullyingMain
Open search
Bullying
Community hub
Bullying
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Bullying
Bullying
from Wikipedia

A depiction of a student being bullied by three other students. A bystander is seen in the background, paying no attention.
Share of children who report being bullied (2015)

Bullying is the use of force, coercion, hurtful teasing, comments, or threats, in order to abuse, aggressively dominate, or intimidate one or more others. The behavior is often repeated and habitual. One essential prerequisite is the perception (by the bully or by others) that an imbalance of physical or social power exists or is currently present. This perceived presence of physical or social imbalance is what distinguishes the behavior from being interpreted or perceived as bullying from instead being interpreted or perceived as conflict.[1][2] Bullying is a subcategory of aggressive behavior characterized by hostile intent, the goal (whether consciously or subconsciously) of addressing or attempting to "fix" the imbalance of power, as well as repetition over a period of time.[3]

Bullying can be performed individually or by a group, typically referred to as mobbing,[4] in which the bully may have one or more followers who are willing to assist the primary bully or who reinforce the bully's behavior by providing positive feedback such as laughing.[5] Bullying in school and in the workplace is also referred to as "peer abuse".[6] Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism.[7] The Swedish-Norwegian researcher Dan Olweus stated that bullying occurs when a person is "exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons",[8] and that negative actions occur "when a person intentionally inflicts injury or discomfort upon another person, through physical contact, through words or in other ways".[8] Individual bullying is usually characterized by a person using coercive, intimidating, or hurtful words or comments, exerting threatening or intimidating behavior, or using harmful physical force in order to gain power over another person.[9]

A bullying culture can develop in any context in which humans regularly interact with one another. This may include settings such as within a school, family, or the workplace,[10] the home, and within neighborhoods. When bullying occurs in college and university settings, the practice is known as ragging in certain countries, especially those of the Indian subcontinent.[11] The main platform for bullying in contemporary culture involves the use of social media websites.[12][dubiousdiscuss] In a 2012 study of male adolescent American football players, "the strongest predictor [of bullying] was the perception of whether the most influential male in a player's life would approve of the bullying behavior."[13] A study by The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health medical journal in 2019 showed a relationship between social media use by girls and an increase in their exposure to bullying.[14]

Bullying may be defined in many different ways. In the United Kingdom, there is no legal definition of the term "bullying",[15] while some states in the United States currently have laws specifically against it.[16] Bullying is divided into four basic types of abuse: psychological (sometimes referred to as "emotional" or "relational"), verbal, physical, and cyber (or "electronic"), though an encounter can fall into more than one of these categories.[17]

Behaviors used to assert such domination may include physical assault or coercion, verbal harassment, or the use of threats, and such acts may be directed repeatedly toward particular targets. Rationalizations of such behavior sometimes include differences of social class, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, appearance, behavior, body language, personality, reputation, lineage, strength, size, or ability.[18][19][20]

Etymology

[edit]

The word "bully" was first used in the 1530s, meaning "sweetheart", applied to either sex, from the Dutch: boel, "lover, brother", probably diminutive of Middle High German: buole, "brother", of uncertain origin (compare with the German word buhle "lover"). The meaning deteriorated through the 17th century through "fine fellow", "blusterer", to "harasser of the weak". This may have been as a connecting sense between "lover" and "ruffian" as in "protector of a prostitute", which was one sense of "bully" (though not specifically attested until 1706). The verb "to bully" was first attested in 1710.[21]

In the past, in the American culture, the term has been used as an exclamation and exhortation. The term has been especially known famously in association with Theodore Roosevelt.[22] In 1907, Roosevelt coined the phrase as a deprecating term, "bully for him".[23] Currently, in the present day, the bully pulpit refers to the use of a high position to influence the general public's thoughts and to initiate changes.[24] The term "bully" has been significantly modified through the years, and through language translations, it has shifted from terms of endearment to a form of sarcastic jesting, and then to one or more actions made against others, as well as behavior or activity to be fearful of.

Types

[edit]

Bullying has been classified by the body of literature into different types. These can be in the form of nonverbal, verbal, or physical behavior. Another classification is based on the perpetrators or the participants involved, so that the types include individual and collective bullying. Other interpretation also cite emotional and relational bullying in addition to physical harm inflicted towards another person or even property.[25]

This is present in extreme forms of bullying, such as hate crimes. A hate crime is when a perpetrator harms a victim because they perceive them to be a member of an outgroup that they are biased against.[26] Perpetrators often harm victims that are perceived as belonging to a group based on their race, ethnicity, skin color, religion, nationality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and or disability.[26] Both bullying and hate crimes involve the devaluing and disrespecting of another person for what is deemed or determined by the perpetrator to be justified reasons. Yet, not all bullying is considered to be a hate crime. Bullies often select their victims because of specific characteristics that the bully views as nonconforming to their specific requirements or sense of belonging.[27] This means that individuals in minority groups are more likely to be targeted. However, bullies usually choose victims that are more available and or vulnerable. This is a more broad approach or motivation than with the engagement of hate crimes.

There are also cases being researched now and in the more recent years regarding the phenomenon called "cyberbullying", which takes place in the virtual or electronic world, typically over the internet.[28] Physical, verbal, and relational bullying are most prevalent in primary school and could also begin much earlier while continuing into later stages of individual's lives. The cases of cyberbullying usually start in early adolescence, when the possession, ownership, or occurrence of cellular or mobile devices are more common.[citation needed]

Individual

[edit]

Individual bullying tactics are perpetrated by a single person against one or more victims.[29] Individual bullying can be classified into four types.[30]

Physical

[edit]

Physical bullying is any bullying that physically harms someone's body or damages their possessions. Stealing, shoving, hitting, kicking, fighting, pantsing, and intentionally destroying someone's property are examples of physical bullying. Physical bullying is rarely the first form of bullying that a victim will experience. Often, bullying will begin in a different form and later progress to physical violence. In physical bullying, the main weapon the bully uses is their body, or some part thereof; or an object as a weapon when attacking their victim. Sometimes groups of young adults will target and alienate a peer because of some adolescent prejudice. This can quickly lead to a situation where they are being taunted, tortured, and "beaten up" by their classmates. Physical bullying will often escalate over time, and can lead to a detrimental or fatal ending, and therefore many try to stop it quickly when such cases are reported or observed in order to prevent any further escalation.[31]

Verbal

[edit]

Verbal bullying is one of the most common types of bullying. This is any bullying that is conducted by speaking, other use of the voice, or some form of body language, and does not involve any form of physical contact. Bullying usually begins at this stage and includes any of the following:

  • Derogatory name-calling and nicknaming
  • Spreading rumors or lying about someone
  • Making threats or engaging in threatening behavior toward someone
  • Yelling at or talking to someone in a rude or unkind tone of voice, especially without justifiable cause
  • Mocking someone's voice or style of speaking
  • Laughing at someone
  • Use of body language (i.e., the middle finger) to torment someone
  • Making insults or otherwise making fun of someone

In verbal bullying, the main weapon the bully uses is their voice. In many cases, verbal bullying is common in both genders. However, girls are more likely to perform this type of bullying compared to boys. Girls, in general, are also more subtle with insults than boys. Girls use verbal bullying, as well as social exclusion techniques, to dominate and control other individuals and show their superiority and power, often to try to impress someone they idolize. Many boys are subtle enough to use verbal techniques for dominance, and often exhibit this type of bullying when they want to avoid the trouble or possible consequences that can come with physically bullying someone else.[32]

Relational

[edit]

Relational bullying (sometimes referred to as social aggression) is the type of bullying that uses relationships to hurt others.[33] The term also denotes any bullying that is done with the intent to hurt somebody's reputation or social standing which can also link in with the techniques included in physical and verbal bullying. Relational bullying is a form of bullying common among youth, but more particularly upon girls. Social exclusion (slighting or making someone feel "left out") is one of the most common types of relational bullying. Relational bullying can be used as a tool by bullies to both improve their social standing and in order to control others. Unlike physical bullying, which is obvious, relational bullying is not overt and can continue for a long time without being noticed.[34]

Cyber

[edit]

Cyberbullying involves the use of technology (typically the internet) in order to harass, threaten, embarrass, or target another person. When an adult is involved, it may meet the definition of cyber-harassment or cyberstalking, a crime that can have legal consequences and possibly involve penalties such as jail time when cases are reported and the perpetrators are legally prosecuted.[35] This includes bullying by use of email, instant messaging, social media websites (such as Facebook), text messages, and phone calls from cell phones or mobile devices. It is stated that Cyberbullying is more common in secondary school than in primary school.[30]

The internet provides people with limited accountability and often with no filter.[36] Bullying can feel easier and less restrictive through the use of the internet. This phenomenon is described and detailed in a principle (or effect), called "the online disinhibition effect". The use of technology for purposes of bullying can be detrimental to someone's online reputation. The information published online will often remain there indefinitely, unless it is taken down or removed by the person who published it, or by moderators of the website or web platform, or (if allowed) by other users. Future employers and other people with access to the internet will be able to see others' digital footprint and how individuals behaved or treated other people - especially if concerted efforts are allocated in order to search for and find any posts, webpages, or content that may negatively impact the target person's evaluation or eligibility for a position. Another problem with cyberbullying is the possibility that other people are able to get involved. Technology, especially the use of social media, allows others to repost or share published content, whether it is positive or negative.[citation needed]

Mobbing

[edit]

Mobbing refers to the bullying of an individual by a group, in any context, such as a family, peer group, school, workplace, neighborhood, community, or online. When it occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as "ganging up" by co-workers, subordinates or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial/racial, general harassment.[37]

Characteristics

[edit]

Bullies and accomplices

[edit]

Studies have shown that envy and resentment may be motives for bullying.[38] Research on the self-esteem of bullies has produced equivocal results.[39][40] While some bullies are arrogant and narcissistic,[41] they can also use bullying as a tool to conceal shame or anxiety or to boost self-esteem: by demeaning others, the abuser feels empowered.[42] Bullies may bully out of jealousy or because they themselves are bullied.[43] Psychologist Roy Baumeister asserts that people who are prone to abusive behavior tend to have inflated but fragile egos. Because they think too highly of themselves, they are frequently offended by the criticisms and lack of deference of other people, and react to this disrespect with violence and insults.[44][full citation needed]

Researchers have identified other risk factors such as depression[45] and personality disorders,[46] as well as quickness to anger and use of force, addiction to aggressive behaviors, mistaking others' actions as hostile, concern with preserving self-image, and engaging in obsessive or rigid actions.[47] A combination of these factors may also be causes of this behavior.[48] In one study of youth, a combination of antisocial traits and depression was found to be the best predictor of youth violence, whereas video game violence and television violence exposure were not predictive of these behaviors.[49]

Bullying may also result from a genetic predisposition or a brain abnormality in the bully.[50] While parents can help a toddler develop emotional regulation and control to restrict aggressive behavior, some children fail to develop these skills due to insecure attachment with their families, ineffective discipline, and environmental factors such as a stressful home life and hostile siblings.[30] Moreover, according to some researchers, bullies may be inclined toward negativity and perform poorly academically. Dr. Cook says, "A typical bully has trouble resolving problems with others and also has trouble academically. He or she usually has negative attitudes and beliefs about others, feels negatively toward himself/herself, comes from a family environment characterized by conflict and poor parenting, perceives school as negative and is negatively influenced by peers."[51]

Contrarily, some researchers have suggested that some bullies are psychologically strongest and have high social standing among their peers, while their targets are emotionally distressed and socially marginalized.[52] Peer groups often promote the bully's actions, and members of these peer groups also engage in behaviors, such as mocking, excluding, punching, and insulting one another as a source of entertainment.[30] Other researchers also argued that a minority of the bullies, those who are not in-turn bullied, enjoy going to school, and are least likely to take days off sick.[53]

Research indicates that adults who bully have authoritarian personalities, combined with a strong need to control or dominate.[54] It has also been suggested that a prejudicial view of subordinates can be a particularly strong risk factor.[55]

In a recent study, bullies showed lower school performance-related self-esteem than non-involved students. They also showed higher social self-esteem than victims of traditional bullying.[56]

Brain studies have shown that the section of the brain associated with reward becomes active when bullies are shown a video of someone inflicting pain on another.[57]

Bystanders

[edit]

Often, bullying takes place in the presence of a large group of relatively uninvolved bystanders. In many cases, it is the bully's ability to create the illusion they have the support of the majority present that instills the fear of "speaking out" in protestation of the bullying activities being observed by the group. Unless the "bully mentality" is effectively challenged in any given group in its early stages, it often becomes an accepted, or supported, norm within the group.[58][59]

Unless action is taken, a "culture of bullying" is often perpetuated within a group for months, years, or longer.[60]

Bystanders who have been able to establish their own "friendship group" or "support group" have been found to be far more likely to opt to speak out against bullying behavior than those who have not.[61][62]

In addition to communication of clear expectations that bystanders should intervene and increasing individual self-efficacy, there is growing research to suggest interventions should build on the foundation that bullying is morally wrong.[63]

Among adults, being a bystander to workplace bullying was linked to depression.[64]

The Bystander effect can be detrimental to the person being bullied.[65] People are less likely to stand up for someone or something when others are around. In the case of cyberbullying, people that see bullying happen on social media are less likely to say something back, whether online or in person. People can have good intentions and want to help, but with no action, nothing will be accomplished. "The act of others stepping in is what will stop bullying".[66] To stop the Bystander effect, people should be confident and stand up for what they believe in. Do not worry what people think of you, rather think of what the benefits can be for the person being bullied.

Victims

[edit]

Dr. Cook says, "A typical victim is likely to be aggressive, lack social skills, think negative thoughts, experience difficulties in solving social problems, come from a negative family, school and community environments and be noticeably rejected and isolated by peers."[51] Victims often have characteristics such as being physically and mentally weak, as well as being easily distraught emotionally. They may also have physical characteristics that make them easier targets for bullies such as being overweight or having some type of physical deformity. Boys are more likely to be victims of physical bullying while girls are more likely to be bullied indirectly.[67]

Low levels of self-esteem has been identified as a frequent antecedent of bullying victimization. Victims of traditional bullying tend to have lower global, social, body-related, and emotional self-esteem compared to uninvolved students.[56][68][69][70][71] Victims of cyberbullying, on the other hand, may not have lower self-esteem scores than uninvolved students but might have higher body-related self-esteem than both victims of traditional bullying and bullies.[56]

It has also been shown that victims are more likely to employ self-defeating or self-deprecating humor intended to entertain others at the expense of themselves and their own feelings.[72]

The results of a meta-analysis conducted by Cook and published by the American Psychological Association in 2010 concluded the main risk factors for children and adolescents being bullied, and also for becoming bullies, are the lack of social problem-solving skills.[51]

Effects

[edit]

Mona O'Moore of the Anti-Bullying Centre at Trinity College in Dublin, has written, "There is a growing body of research which indicates that individuals, whether child or adult, who are persistently subjected to abusive behavior are at risk of stress related illness which can sometimes lead to suicide."[73] Those who have been the targets of bullying can develop long-term emotional and behavioral problems. Bullying can cause loneliness, depression, anxiety, lead to low self-esteem and increased susceptibility to illness.[74] Bullying has also been shown to cause maladjustment in young children, and targets of bullying who were also bullies themselves exhibit even greater social difficulties.[56][75] A mental health report also found that bullying was linked to eating disorders, anxiety, body dysmorphia and other negative psychological effects.[76] Both victims and perpetrators have been shown to exhibit higher levels of loneliness.[56]

Suicide

[edit]

Even though there is evidence that bullying increases the risk of suicide, bullying alone does not cause suicide. Depression is one of the main reasons why children who are bullied die by suicide.[77] It is estimated that between 15 and 25 children die by suicide every year in the UK alone because they are being bullied.[78] Certain groups seem to incur a higher risk for suicide, such as Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, Asian Americans, and LGBT people. When someone feels unsupported by family or friends, it can make the situation much worse for the victim.[79]

In a self-report study completed in New York by 9th through 12th graders, victims of bullying reported more depressive symptoms and psychological distress than those who did not experience bullying.[80] All types of involvement in bullying among both boys and girls is associated with depression even a couple years later.[81] Another study that followed up with Finnish teens two years after the initial survey showed that depression and suicidal ideation is higher with teens who are bullied than those who did not report experiencing bullying.[81] A Dutch longitudinal study on elementary students reported that boys who are bully-victims, who play both roles of a victim and a bully, were more likely to experience depression or serious suicidal ideation than the other roles, victims or bullies only, while girls who have any involvement in bullying have a higher level of risk for depression.[82] In a study of high school students completed in Boston, students who self reported being victims of bullying were more likely to consider suicide when compared to youth who did not report being bullied.[83] The same study also showed a higher risk of suicidal consideration in youth who report being a perpetrator, victim, or victim-perpetrator. Victims and victim-bullies are associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. The place where youth live also appears to differentiate their bullying experiences such that those living in more urban areas who reported both being bullied and bullying others appear to show higher risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.[83] A national survey given to American 6th through 10th grade students found that cyberbullying victims experience a higher level of depression than victims experiencing other forms of bullying. This can be related to the anonymity behind social media.[28] If a teen is being bullied and is displaying symptoms of depression it should be questioned and interventions should be implemented.[81] The Danish study showed that kids who are bullied talked to their parents and teachers about it and some reported a decrease in bullying or a stop in the bullying after a teacher or parent intervened. The study emphasizes the importance of implementing program-collaborations in schools to have programs and anti-bullying interventions in place to prevent and properly intervene when it occurs.[82] The study also shows the importance of having parents and teachers talk to the bullies about their bullying behavior in order to provide the necessary support for those experiencing bullying.[82]

While some people find it very easy to ignore a bully, others may find it very difficult and reach a breaking point. There have been cases of apparent bullying suicides that have been reported closely by the media. These include the deaths of Ryan Halligan, Phoebe Prince, Dawn-Marie Wesley, Nicola Ann Raphael, Megan Meier, Audrie Pott, Tyler Clementi, Jamey Rodemeyer, Kenneth Weishuhn, Jadin Bell, Kelly Yeomans, Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd, Brodie Panlock,[84] Jessica Haffer,[85] Hamed Nastoh,[86] Sladjana Vidovic,[87] April Himes,[88] Cherice Moralez[89] and Rebecca Ann Sedwick.[90] According to the suicide awareness voices for education, suicide is one of the leading causes of death for youth from 15 to 24 years old. Over 16 percent of students seriously consider suicide, 13 percent create a plan, and 8 percent have made a serious attempt.[91]

Strength and wisdom

[edit]

Some have argued that bullying can teach life lessons and instill strength. Helene Guldberg, a child development academic, sparked controversy when she argued that being a target of bullying can teach a child "how to manage disputes and boost their ability to interact with others", and that teachers should not intervene but leave children to respond to the bullying themselves. Others, however, have pointed out that this is only true for normal peer conflicts but not for bullying cases.[1]

The teaching of anti-bullying coping skills to children, carers and teachers has been found to be an effective long-term means of reducing bullying incidence rates and a valuable skill-set for individuals.[92]

Testosterone production

[edit]

Statistically controlling for age and pubertal status, results indicated that on average verbally bullied girls produced less testosterone, and verbally bullied boys produced more testosterone than their nonbullied counterparts.[93]

Dark triad

[edit]

Research on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy) indicate a correlation with bullying as part of evidence of the aversive nature of those traits.[94]

Studies have shown that bullying behavior is positively correlated with Dark Triad traits. Out of the three traits of the Dark Triad, psychopathy is most strongly correlated to bullying.[95] It is posited that this is because aggression related to psychopathy is more likely to be unprovoked than Machiavellianism and narcissism.[96] This holds true in traditional bullying as well as with cyberbullying.[96] Psychopathy has the strongest correlations, followed by Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Although the lower of the three, narcissism is still correlated, being more prevalent in types of indirect bullying than physical bullying.[95]

Emotional intelligence

[edit]

Bullying is abusive social interaction between peers which can include aggression, harassment, and violence. Bullying is typically repetitive and enacted by those who are in a position of power over the victim. A growing body of research illustrates a significant relationship between bullying and emotional intelligence (EI). Mayer et al., (2008) defines the dimensions of overall EI as "accurately perceiving emotion, using emotions to facilitate thought, understanding emotion, and managing emotion".[97] The concept combines emotional and intellectual processes.[98] Lower emotional intelligence appears to be related to involvement in bullying, as the bully and/or the victim of bullying. EI seems to play an important role in both bullying behavior and victimization in bullying; given that EI is illustrated to be malleable, EI education could greatly improve bullying prevention and intervention initiatives.[99]

Context

[edit]

Internet

[edit]

Cyberbullying is any bullying done through the use of technology. This form of bullying can easily go undetected because of lack of authoritative (including parental) supervision.[100] Because bullies can pose as someone else, it is the most anonymous form of bullying.[101] Cyberbullying includes abuse using email, instant messaging, text messaging, websites, and social networking sites.[102] Particular watchdog organizations have been designed to contain the spread of cyberbullying.[103]

Disability

[edit]

Disabled people are disproportionately affected by bullying and abuse, and such activity has been cited as a hate crime.[104] The bullying is not limited to those who are visibly disabled, such as wheelchair users or physically deformed such as those with a cleft lip, but also those with developmental disabilities such as autism[105][106] and developmental coordination disorder.[107][108]

There is an additional problem that those with learning disabilities are often not as able to explain things to other people, so are more likely to be disbelieved or ignored if they do complain.[citation needed]

Homosexuality

[edit]

Gay bullying and gay bashing designate direct or indirect verbal or physical actions by a person or group against someone who is gay or lesbian, or perceived to be so due to rumors or because they are considered to fit gay stereotypes. Gay and lesbian youth are more likely than straight youth to report bullying, as well as be bullied.[109][110]

Law

[edit]

Legal bullying is the bringing of a vexatious legal action to control and punish a person. Legal bullying can often take the form of frivolous, repetitive, or burdensome lawsuits brought to intimidate the defendant into submitting to the litigant's request, not because of the legal merit of the litigant's position, but principally due to the defendant's inability to maintain the legal battle. This can also take the form of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). It was partially concern about the potential for this kind of abuse that helped to fuel the protests against SOPA and PIPA in the United States in 2011 and 2012.[citation needed]

Military

[edit]

In 2000, the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) defined bullying as "the use of physical strength or the abuse of authority to intimidate or victimize others, or to give unlawful punishments".[111]

Some argue that this behaviour should be allowed, due to ways in which "soldiering" is different from other occupations. Soldiers expected to risk their lives should, according to them, develop strength of body and spirit to accept bullying.[112]

Parenting

[edit]

Parents who may displace their anger, insecurity, or a persistent need to dominate and control upon their children in excessive ways have been proven to increase the likelihood that their own children will in turn become overly aggressive or controlling towards their peers.[113] The American Psychological Association advises on its website that parents who may suspect their own children may be engaging in bullying activities among their peers should carefully consider the examples which they themselves may be setting for their own children regarding how they typically interact with their own peers, colleagues, and children.[114]

Prison

[edit]

The prison environment is known for bullying. An additional complication is the staff and their relationships with the inmates. Thus, the following possible bullying scenarios are possible:

  • Inmate bullies inmate (echoing school bullying)
  • Staff bullies inmate
  • Staff bullies staff (a manifestation of workplace bullying)
  • Inmate bullies staff

School

[edit]
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention graphic presenting school anti-bullying guidelines

It is important to distinguish school bullying that per definition has the goal of harming the victim from normal peer conflict that is an inherent part of everyday school life and often promotes social development.[1] Unlike normal conflict, bullying is a systematic and repeated abuse committed intentionally by another student who has more power (physical, social, or otherwise). School bullies may taunt and tease their target before finally physically bullying them. Bystanders typically choose to either participate or watch, sometimes out of fear of becoming the next target.

Bullying can occur in nearly any part in or around the school building, although it may occur more frequently during physical education classes and activities such as recess. Bullying also takes place in school hallways, bathrooms, on school buses and while waiting for buses, and in classes that require group work and/or after school activities. Bullying in school sometimes consists of a group of students taking advantage of or isolating one student in particular and gaining the loyalty of bystanders who want to avoid becoming the next target. The 2011 documentary Bully showcases the lives of five American public school students who face bullying in school and while on the school bus. The bullying is shown to affect the students both at school and in their homes.

Teachers play an important role in bullying prevention and intervention because they are the adults who spend most of their time with the students.[115][116] Bullying can, however, also be perpetrated by teachers and the school system itself; there is an inherent power differential in the system that can easily predispose to subtle or covert abuse (relational aggression or passive aggression), humiliation, or exclusion – even while maintaining overt commitments to anti-bullying policies.[117][118][119]

In 2016, in Canada, a North American legal precedent was set by a mother and her son, after the son was bullied in his public school. The mother and son won a court case against the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, making this the first case in North America where a school board has been found negligent in a bullying case for failing to meet the standard of care (the "duty of care" that the school board owes to its students). Thus, it sets a precedent of a school board being found liable in negligence for harm caused to a child, because they failed to protect a child from the bullying actions of other students. There has been only one other similar bullying case and it was won in Australia in 2013 (Oyston v. St. Patricks College, 2013).[120]

Gendered

[edit]

Sexual bullying is "any bullying behaviour, whether physical or non-physical, that is based on a person's sexuality or gender. It is when sexuality or gender is used as a weapon by boys or girls towards other boys or girls – although it is more commonly directed at girls. It can be carried out to a person's face, behind their back or through the use of technology."[121]

Transsexuality

[edit]

Trans bashing is the act of victimizing a person physically, sexually, or verbally because they are transgender or transsexual.[122] Unlike gay bashing, it is committed because of the target's actual or perceived gender identity, not sexual orientation.[citation needed]

Work

[edit]

Workplace bullying occurs when an employee experiences a persistent pattern of mistreatment from others in the workplace that causes harm.[123] Workplace bullying can include such tactics as verbal, nonverbal, psychological, physical abuse and humiliation. This type of workplace aggression is particularly difficult because, unlike the typical forms of school bullying, workplace bullies often operate within the established rules and policies of their organization and their society. Bullying in the workplace is in the majority of cases reported as having been perpetrated by someone in authority over the target. Bullies can also be peers, and occasionally can be subordinates.[124]

The first known documented use of "workplace bullying" is in 1992 in a book by Andrea Adams called Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome It.[125][126]

Research has also investigated the impact of the larger organizational context on bullying as well as the group-level processes that impact on the incidence, and maintenance of bullying behavior.[127] Bullying can be covert or overt. It may be missed by superiors or known by many throughout the organization. Negative effects are not limited to the targeted individuals, and may lead to a decline in employee morale and a change in organizational culture.[10] A Cochrane Collaboration systematic review has found very low quality evidence to suggest that organizational and individual interventions may prevent bullying behaviors in the workplace.[128]

Academia

[edit]

Bullying in academia is workplace bullying of scholars and staff in academia, especially places of higher education such as colleges and universities. It is believed to be common, although has not received as much attention from researchers as bullying in some other contexts.[129]

Blue-collar jobs

[edit]

Bullying has been identified as prominent in blue-collar jobs, including on oil rigs and in mechanic shops and machine shops. It is thought that intimidation and fear of retribution cause decreased incident reports. In industry sectors dominated by males, typically of little education, where disclosure of incidents are seen as effeminate, reporting in the socioeconomic and cultural milieu of such industries would likely lead to a vicious circle. This is often used in combination with manipulation and coercion of facts to gain favour among higher-ranking administrators.[130]

Information technology

[edit]

A culture of bullying is common in information technology (IT), leading to high sickness rates, low morale, poor productivity, and high staff-turnover.[131] Deadline-driven project work and stressed-out managers take their toll on IT workers.[132]

Courts

[edit]

Bullying in the legal profession is believed to be more common than in some other professions. It is believed that its adversarial, hierarchical tradition contributes towards this.[133] Women, trainees and solicitors who have been qualified for five years or less are more affected, as are ethnic minority lawyers and lesbian, gay and bisexual lawyers.[134]

Medicine

[edit]

Bullying in the medical profession is common, particularly of student or trainee doctors and of nurses. It is thought that this is at least in part an outcome of conservative traditional hierarchical structures and teaching methods in the medical profession, which may result in a bullying cycle.

Even though The American Nurses Association believes that all nursing personnel have the right to work in safe, non-abusive environments, bullying has been identified as being particularly prevalent in the nursing profession although the reasons are not clear. It is thought that relational aggression (psychological aspects of bullying such as gossiping and intimidation) are relevant. Relational aggression has been studied among girls but not so much among adult women.[132][135]

Teaching

[edit]

School teachers are commonly the subject of bullying but they are also sometimes the originators of bullying within a school environment.

Machines

[edit]

Children have been observed bullying anthropomorphic robots designed to assist the elderly. Their attacks start with blocking the robots' paths of movement and then escalate to verbal abuse, hitting and destroying the object. Seventy-five percent of the kids interviewed perceived the robot as "human-like" yet decided to abuse it anyway, while 35% of the kids who beat up the robot did so "for enjoyment".[136]

Prevention

[edit]

Bullying prevention is the collective effort to prevent, reduce and stop bullying.[137] Many campaigns and events are designated to bullying prevention throughout the world. Bullying prevention campaigns and events include Anti-Bullying Day, Anti-Bullying Week, International Day of Pink, International STAND UP to Bullying Day and National Bullying Prevention Month. Anti-bullying laws in the U.S. have also been enacted in 23 of its 50 states, making bullying in schools illegal.[138]

A 2019 study by McCallion & Feder found that school-based anti-bullying programs may lower the incidence of bullying by 25%.[139]

Bullying prevention programs allow schools to help decrease cyberbullying within the realm of school. The prevention methods are targeted mainly for middle schoolers, where we see the most bullying occur.[140] To help decrease cyberbullying, people need to take preventative measures. One preventative method was implemented to determine the effectiveness against cyberbullying. This program called "Media Heroes" showed how educating teachers on bullying behaviors in school can help them educate and stop students from bullying. This educational program decreased bullying in their schools. Having trusted adults become educated on what can go on online, can help prevent further cyberbullying.[141]

Responses

[edit]

One study showed that attempts to ignore bullying often does nothing to stop the bullying continuing, and it allows it to become worse over time.[142] It can be important to address bullying behaviour early on, as it can be easier to control the earlier it is detected.[143] Bystanders play an important role in responding to bullying, as doing nothing can encourage it to continue, while small steps that oppose the behaviour can reduce it.[144]

Authority figures can play an important role, such as parents or teachers in child or adolescent situations, or supervisors, human-resources staff or parent-bodies in workplace and volunteer settings. In the school context, teachers who set clear boundaries, communicate seriously that bullying behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and involve school administrators have been shown to reduce bullying.[115] Discussing bullying and its consequences with the whole class is also an important intervention that not only reduces bullying, but also encourages other students to step in and stop bullying even before it reaches its full form.[115] In general, authority figures can be influential in recognising and stopping bullying behaviour, and creating an environment that does not encourage or promote bullying.[145][146]

In many situations, authority figures are untrained and unqualified, do not know how to respond, and can make the situation worse.[147] In some cases the authority figures even support the people doing the bullying, facilitating it continuing and increasing the isolation and marginalising of the target.[148] Some of the most effective ways to respond are to recognise that harmful behaviour is taking place, and to create an environment where it will not continue.[149]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Bullying constitutes repeated aggressive actions by one or more individuals toward a perceived weaker target, marked by a power imbalance and deliberate intent to inflict physical, emotional, or relational harm. This behavior manifests in forms including physical assaults, verbal taunts, , and cyber harassment, predominantly among but extending to adults in workplaces and institutions. Empirical studies identify contributing factors such as family discord, low , peer , and genetic predispositions, rather than isolated moral failings or alone. Global data from meta-analyses indicate that approximately 25% of children and adolescents experience victimization, with perpetration rates around 16%, varying by region, , and socioeconomic —higher among males for physical forms and in areas with weaker social supports. Longitudinal research reveals persistent consequences, including elevated risks of depression, anxiety, substance use, and interpersonal distrust persisting into adulthood, independent of pre-existing vulnerabilities in many cases. These outcomes underscore bullying's role as a causal amplifying trajectories, though self-reported measures introduce potential and social desirability biases in estimates. Interventions, such as school-based programs targeting bystander involvement and norm shifts, yield modest reductions in perpetration (18-20%) and victimization (15-16%), per meta-analyses of randomized trials; however, effects diminish over time without sustained implementation, and some universal approaches show null or iatrogenic results due to inadequate focus on underlying . Defining characteristics include its function in establishing dominance hierarchies among peers, as evidenced by evolutionary and observational studies, challenging narratives that frame it solely as pathological deviance.

Definition and Scope

Core Definition and Criteria

Bullying is defined as the repeated exposure of an individual to negative actions carried out intentionally by one or more other persons, where the target experiences difficulty in defending themselves due to an imbalance of power. This formulation, originating from researcher Dan Olweus's foundational work in the 1970s and refined in his 1993 book Bullying at School, emphasizes three essential criteria: intentionality (deliberate harm), repetition (ongoing over time rather than isolated incidents), and power asymmetry (physical, psychological, or social disparity preventing effective ). The criterion of intentionality distinguishes bullying from accidental harm, requiring that the aggressor acts with awareness and purpose to inflict physical, emotional, or relational damage, often deriving satisfaction from the victim's distress. Repetition ensures the behavior pattern endures beyond a single event, creating sustained victimization; Olweus specified "repeatedly and over time," while some public health definitions, such as the CDC's, incorporate a "high likelihood of repetition" to capture escalating threats. Power imbalance, the third pillar, arises from factors like age, size, social status, or group dynamics, rendering the victim vulnerable and unable to reciprocate or escape without intervention; this element underscores bullying's predatory nature, as aggressors exploit perceived weaknesses. These criteria, validated through longitudinal studies involving thousands of students across and later globally, enable consistent identification in , though variations exist—such as the CDC's exclusion of or dating-related to focus on peer contexts. Absent any one criterion, the behavior may constitute or conflict but not bullying, preserving definitional rigor against overgeneralization in surveys or interventions.

Distinction from Normal Conflict and Teasing

Bullying is distinguished from normal peer conflict primarily by three core criteria: an to cause physical, emotional, or psychological ; repetition of the aggressive acts over time; and a clear imbalance of power, where the perpetrator holds an advantage in , , , or other resources that the victim lacks. These elements, as outlined in foundational research by , transform isolated aggression into a systematic pattern of victimization rather than a mutual exchange. Empirical studies confirm that without these features, behaviors do not qualify as bullying, emphasizing that equating the two overlooks the unidirectional dominance inherent in bullying dynamics. Normal peer conflict, by contrast, arises between individuals of comparable power and typically involves reciprocal actions, such as arguments or disagreements, where both parties experience distress but retain agency to negotiate or disengage. Unlike bullying, conflict lacks premeditated to subjugate one side and often resolves through communication or , with not escalating into prolonged . Peer-reviewed analyses highlight that conflicts between equals foster social learning and do not produce the same long-term victimization effects observed in bullying, such as sustained or withdrawal, underscoring their qualitative difference. Misinterpreting conflict as bullying risks overpathologizing normative development, as data from longitudinal studies show most peer disputes are transient and bidirectional. Teasing differs from bullying when it remains playful, reciprocal, and devoid of hostile intent, often serving functions like social bonding or humor among peers of equal standing, where both parties enjoy the interaction and the teased individual can respond or request cessation without . distinguishes benign teasing by its lack of repetition aimed at distress and absence of power asymmetry, noting that it typically involves affectionate provocation that both parties perceive as non-threatening. However, teasing escalates to bullying when it becomes one-sided, targets vulnerabilities repeatedly, and exploits imbalances to inflict genuine harm, with the key distinction lying in whether the target experiences distress or pain—such as in cases of extortion (e.g., demanding money), physical acts causing discomfort (e.g., throwing objects like insects), or repeated insults to appearance that provoke emotional suffering rather than mutual amusement. This boundary is empirically supported by surveys showing that only teasing with deliberate malice correlates with peer rejection patterns akin to bullying, rather than the mutual seen in harmless exchanges.

Prevalence and Epidemiology

Bullying victimization affects approximately 25% of adolescents globally, based on a of studies pooling data from multiple countries, with perpetration rates around 16% and bully-victim overlap also at 16%. In a multinational study spanning 83 countries, 30.5% of adolescents reported experiencing bullying. Prevalence varies by region and measurement method, with self-reported surveys typically yielding higher estimates than observational data due to subjective perceptions of intent and repetition; behavior-based scales often report lower rates than definition-based ones. In the United States, about 19% of students aged 12–18 experienced bullying during the 2021–22 school year, a decline from 28% in 2010–11, according to nationally representative surveys. This equates to roughly one in five students, with verbal bullying most common (14.5% repeatedly over time) and physical forms less frequent (5%). Trends indicate stabilization or slight decreases in traditional -based bullying post-2010, potentially linked to campaigns, though victimization has risen sharply, from 16.5% in 2016 to over 30% in recent estimates. Epidemiological patterns show victimization peaking in early to middle (ages 11–15), then declining with age, while perpetration often increases through , particularly among boys in 70% of studied countries. differences are pronounced: boys exhibit higher rates of overt physical and verbal perpetration and victimization, whereas girls report more , though overall victimization rates are similar or slightly higher for boys in many datasets (e.g., 17.8% vs. 17.6% in one adolescent sample). Socioeconomic and academic disparities persist, with lower-achieving or lower-SES students facing 1.5–2 times higher victimization odds across 71 countries. Recent international assessments, such as TIMSS, document rising reports among younger students, from 45% to 56% for fourth graders between cycles.

Historical and Etymological Background

Etymology of the Term

The term "bully" entered English in the 1530s as a meaning "sweetheart" or "lover," applicable to either sex, derived from the boel ("lover" or "brother"). This positive persisted into the , where it also denoted a "fine fellow," "gallant," or "boisterous ," reflecting associations with camaraderie or bravado rather than . By the late 17th century, the word's meaning shifted negatively to describe a "hired ruffian" or protector who intimidated others on behalf of patrons, marking a transition from endearment to thuggery. The verb form "to bully," meaning to oppress or overbear with bluster and threats, emerged around 1710, drawing from the noun's evolving sense of coercive dominance. This usage solidified in the , influenced by cultural depictions of enforcers in literature and society. The noun "bullying," denoting the act of insolent tyrannizing or systematic , first appeared in 1777 as a from the "bully." Its application to repetitive victimization, particularly among , gained traction in the 19th and 20th centuries, though early records often framed it in adult contexts like dueling or rather than schoolyard dynamics. This semantic deterioration from affection to aggression underscores how linguistic shifts can mirror societal reevaluations of power imbalances.

Historical Perceptions and Documentation

Instances of aggressive dominance and victimization resembling modern bullying appear in ancient narratives, such as Biblical accounts of Cain's murder of Abel and Joseph's mistreatment by his brothers, though these lack the repeated, peer-power imbalance central to contemporary definitions. Historical records from antiquity through the rarely distinguish bullying as a discrete phenomenon, likely viewing it as normative within social hierarchies rather than a distinct social ill; evidence suggests youth aggression was more prevalent and severe than today but underdocumented due to its perceived normalcy. In Western educational settings, practices like in British public schools from the onward institutionalized subservience of younger pupils to seniors, often involving physical and rationalized as character-building discipline. The 19th century marks the onset of more explicit documentation, primarily through literature and isolated reports. Thomas Hughes's Tom Brown's School Days (1857), based on experiences at Rugby School, depicts systematic torment by older boys like Flashman as a harsh but accepted facet of boarding school life, emblematic of Victorian perceptions that such "trials" forged resilience in boys. Newspaper accounts further illustrate this era's tolerance: a 1862 The Times report on a soldier's death from persistent peer harassment provided the first formal delineation of bullying as intentional, repetitive harm, yet similar incidents, such as a boy's fatal beating at King's School, Cambridge, in 1885, were largely dismissed as unfortunate byproducts of youthful vigor rather than requiring systemic intervention. Perceptions began shifting in the 20th century toward recognizing bullying's detrimental effects, spurred by tragic outcomes and empirical inquiry. Early 1900s views retained elements of it as a "rite of passage," but post-World War II surveys and studies, culminating in Dan Olweus's pioneering 1970s Norwegian research involving questionnaires from over 140,000 students across 715 schools, quantified its prevalence and psychological toll, reframing it as a preventable concern rather than inevitable boyhood misadventure. This transition from anecdotal literary and journalistic records to standardized, data-driven documentation enabled cross-cultural comparisons, revealing variations like Japan's ijime () in the or Korea's shame-based myunsinrae during the Chosun Dynasty, though Western focus dominated early systematic efforts.

Types of Bullying

Physical Bullying

Physical bullying encompasses aggressive actions that involve direct physical contact or the use of objects to inflict harm, , or discomfort on a victim, typically in a repeated manner with a perceived power imbalance. Common examples include hitting, kicking, shoving, tripping, pinching, spitting, and damaging or stealing a victim's belongings. These behaviors differ from accidental contact or mutual play by their intentionality and aim to dominate or injure. This form of bullying is often more overt and observable than verbal or relational variants, frequently occurring in settings like schoolyards, hallways, or classes. Research identifies physical bullying as one of the most prevalent types among adolescents, involving acts such as fighting or pushing, and it correlates with higher rates of bystander involvement due to its visibility. It disproportionately affects males and younger children, with incidence declining as individuals age and subtler forms like emerge. Victims of physical bullying face immediate risks of injury, alongside elevated chances of psychological distress including anxiety, depression, and stress-related somatic symptoms like disturbances. Longitudinal studies link such victimization to poorer trajectories and, in severe cases, physical health complications from repeated assaults. Bullies engaging in physical often exhibit traits associated with conduct issues, perpetuating cycles of that extend beyond environments.

Verbal Bullying

Verbal bullying encompasses the deliberate use of spoken or to inflict , , or on a target, often through repetition or power imbalance. It typically manifests as name-calling, derogatory insults, , , threats of , or exclusionary remarks aimed at undermining the victim's self-worth or social standing. Unlike physical bullying, verbal forms rely on linguistic rather than bodily contact, yet they can escalate to include implicit or explicit threats of physical action. This subtype is documented as the most prevalent form of bullying among , surpassing physical and relational variants in frequency across settings. In surveys of adolescents, verbal bullying accounts for a significant portion of reported incidents, with one of peer-reviewed studies indicating its commonality in both direct confrontations and . data from U.S. school-aged children (ages 12-18) show overall bullying rates around 19% in 2021-22, with verbal elements embedded in the majority of cases, though specific verbal-only metrics vary by study methodology and self-reporting biases. patterns reveal verbal as cross-sexual but with nuances: boys in higher grades often perpetrate more overt verbal acts tied to dominance, while relational-verbal hybrids (e.g., rumor-spreading via words) appear more among girls. Victims of verbal bullying exhibit elevated risks for internalizing disorders, including anxiety (with girls showing mean scores of 1.65 on standardized scales versus lower for boys), depression, low , and somatic health complaints like headaches or disturbances. Longitudinal evidence links repeated exposure to with impaired academic engagement and heightened stress responses, though direct causation requires controlling for pre-existing vulnerabilities. Perpetrators may derive short-term social reinforcement through peer approval, but this correlates with later antisocial trajectories if unchecked. Interventions targeting verbal bullying emphasize early identification of linguistic patterns and fostering assertive communication skills, as unaddressed instances perpetuate cycles of retaliation or withdrawal.

Relational Bullying

Relational bullying, also known as , refers to intentional behaviors aimed at damaging a target's relationships, , or sense of belonging through indirect means such as exclusion, rumor-spreading, manipulation of friendships, or social . Unlike physical or verbal bullying, it targets the victim's interpersonal connections rather than their body or direct communication, often employing covert tactics that exploit for harm. This form of aggression is characterized by its subtlety and reliance on social leverage, making it challenging for adults to detect, as perpetrators frequently frame actions as "normal" peer conflicts or loyalty tests within cliques. Common examples include deliberately excluding a peer from group activities or invitations, gossiping to erode trust among friends, or feigning friendship to extract and weaponize . In school settings, it manifests through tactics like alliance-building against a target or public shaming via whispered alliances, which reinforce the bully's position while isolating the victim. Research indicates relational bullying peaks during adolescence, when peer approval becomes central to identity formation, and is more frequently perpetrated and experienced by girls, though boys engage in it as well, often in hybrid forms with overt aggression. A 2000 study of primary school children in the UK found relational bullying victimization rates at 37.9%, with 1.1% of children acting as pure bullies and 5.9% as bully-victims, highlighting its prevalence even in younger groups. The consequences for victims include heightened risks of internalizing disorders such as depression, anxiety, and , as disrupts evolutionary drives for group affiliation and status. Longitudinal data link relational victimization to poorer academic performance, diminished , and elevated , with effects persisting into adulthood due to eroded trust in relationships. Bullies themselves may derive short-term social gains, such as increased popularity within peer groups, but face long-term associations with externalizing behaviors like . Empirical interventions emphasize fostering and direct communication skills, as relational bullying thrives in environments tolerant of indirect .

Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying refers to the intentional and repeated use of digital communication technologies, such as , text messages, emails, or online gaming platforms, to harass, threaten, or humiliate another individual. This form of often involves tactics like sending insults or threats, spreading false rumors, impersonating victims to damage their reputation, or sharing private information . Unlike isolated incidents, cyberbullying requires a power imbalance where the perpetrator leverages technological reach to exert control, with and the permanence of digital records amplifying its impact. Key distinctions from traditional bullying include the perpetrator's potential , which reduces inhibitions and ; the 24/7 that prevents victims from escaping the ; and the potential for content to reach a vast, unintended audience rapidly, leading to widespread . indicates that while there is overlap—many cyberbullies also engage in offline bullying—cyberbullying victims are not always traditional bullying targets, and the electronic medium can exacerbate psychological harm due to its inescapability and . For instance, a study of adolescents found that correlates more strongly with internalizing problems like anxiety than physical bullying does. Prevalence varies by age, gender, and region, but empirical data from 2023–2024 surveys show it affects a significant minority of . Approximately 15% of school-aged adolescents across reported experiencing , with similar rates for boys (15%) and girls (16%). , 21.6% of students aged 12–18 who were bullied at also faced during the 2021–2022 year, while lifetime exposure reaches 59% for adolescent girls and 50% for boys. Platforms like , , and are common venues, with risks increasing with age and frequent use. Empirical studies link victimization to elevated risks of issues, including depression, anxiety, , and (PTSD), often more severely than traditional bullying due to the pervasive of digital traces. Longitudinal on adolescents shows positive associations between cyber-victimization and subsequent PTSD symptoms, with meta-analyses confirming stronger ties to internalizing disorders. Perpetrators face risks like poor academic performance and substance misuse, while both roles correlate with low and prior offline bullying involvement. Risk factors for perpetration include male gender, , low , and personality traits (e.g., , ), whereas victims often exhibit high usage and enmeshed dynamics. , such as strong parental monitoring and empathy-building interventions, can mitigate onset.

Other Specialized Forms

Bias-based bullying, also known as prejudicial or identity-based bullying, consists of repeated aggressive acts targeting individuals on account of their actual or perceived membership in a defined by characteristics such as race, , , , , or . These acts typically incorporate derogatory slurs, exclusionary practices, or symbolic threats rooted in , distinguishing them from non-motivated aggression by their reliance on stereotyped biases to assert dominance. Empirical research documents its persistence in educational settings, where it exacerbates social divisions and correlates with heightened psychological distress among targeted groups, though varies by demographic; for instance, minority youth report elevated exposure compared to peers, independent of general bullying rates. Sexual bullying involves unwanted sexualized behaviors, such as explicit comments, gestures, propositions, or non-consensual touching, deployed repeatedly to demean or coerce a victim through exploitation of power imbalances. This form overlaps with but qualifies as bullying when it features intentional repetition and perceived inferiority of the target, often occurring in peer contexts like schools where perpetrators leverage for . Studies link it to broader trajectories of interpersonal , with longitudinal data showing early bullying perpetration predicting later involvement, particularly among adolescents exhibiting unchecked dominance behaviors. Gender-based variants emphasize sex-related taunts or enforcement of traditional roles, amplifying harm through reinforcement of normative pressures. Retaliatory bullying emerges as a reactive subtype, wherein initial victims initiate counter-aggression following sustained victimization, blurring lines between perpetrator and target roles. Psychological analyses frame this as a maladaptive response to , where accumulated manifests as escalated , though it rarely resolves underlying conflicts and often perpetuates cycles of involvement. Research on bully-victims highlights elevated risks for such patterns, with subtypes differing in and environmental triggers, underscoring the need for interventions addressing bidirectional dynamics rather than unidirectional labeling.

Causes and Risk Factors

Psychological and Personality Factors

Bullies often exhibit personality traits characterized by low and low , alongside high extraversion, as identified in meta-analytic reviews of Big Five personality dimensions. These traits correlate with reduced concern for others' feelings and diminished impulse control, facilitating aggressive behaviors in social hierarchies. Additionally, elevated levels of the traits—Machiavellianism, , and —along with sadism (forming the Dark Tetrad), are empirically linked to increased bullying perpetration, with psychopathy showing the strongest association in multiple studies. Narcissistic traits, particularly grandiose and vulnerable subtypes, further predict higher involvement in bullying, driven by motivations for dominance and self-enhancement. Low , both affective and cognitive, consistently emerges as a key psychological factor in bullies, impairing their ability to recognize or respond to victims' distress, according to meta-analyses synthesizing self-report and observational data. also plays a role, positively associating with bullying in models where emotional instability amplifies reactive , though its effects can be buffered by . These traits often interact; for instance, high extraversion combined with low heightens the likelihood of proactive bullying to assert . For victimization, higher serves as a , correlating with increased bullying exposure through heightened emotional reactivity and withdrawal behaviors that signal to peers. Lower extraversion and similarly predispose individuals to victimization by limiting assertive and resilience. Intriguingly, some Dark Tetrad traits, such as and sadism, also predict bullying victimization, suggesting that provocative or insensitive behaviors in these individuals may elicit retaliation from others. Low contributes causally via compensation models, where perceived inadequacy prompts either bullying to regain status or submissive postures inviting attacks. These associations are predominantly correlational from cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, underscoring the need for via experimental or genetically informed designs to disentangle from environmental influences. Peer-reviewed meta-analyses provide robust effect sizes (e.g., r ≈ 0.20-0.30 for low in bullies), but self-report biases in adolescent samples warrant caution, as underreporting of may inflate certain estimates.

Family and Socioeconomic Influences

Family environments marked by low parental warmth, rejection, and harsh or inconsistent correlate with elevated risks of children engaging in or experiencing bullying. A nationally representative found that child maltreatment significantly increases the odds of victimization (OR = 1.9) and bully-victim status (OR = 2.1), while exposure to raises the likelihood of perpetration (OR = 1.4). A of 158 studies encompassing over 1 million participants further identified small protective effects against traditional bullying victimization from parental warmth (r = -0.14), autonomy granting (r = -0.16), authoritative parenting (r = -0.10), and monitoring (r = -0.06), contrasted with risk factors such as parental aversiveness (r = 0.20), inter-parental conflict (r = 0.21), and emotional withdrawal (r = 0.18). Authoritative parenting, characterized by high and demandingness, demonstrably reduces adolescent bullying perpetration; for instance, it lowers swearing by 0.388 standard deviations and fighting by 0.212 standard deviations relative to neglectful styles, mediated partly through enhanced interpersonal . In contrast, authoritarian and permissive styles show mixed or weaker mitigating effects on specific behaviors like quarreling or physical aggression, with negative parenting overall amplifying involvement across roles. structural factors, including conflict and limited stimulating parent-child interactions, exacerbate these risks, particularly for bully-victims. Socioeconomic status (SES) influences bullying primarily through heightened victimization in lower strata. A meta-analysis of 28 studies revealed that low-SES children face 40% greater of victimization (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.24-1.58) and 54% greater of bully-victim status (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.36-1.74), while pure bullies exhibit negligible SES linkage (OR = 0.98). Victims are marginally less prevalent in high-SES households (OR = 0.95 for high SES), underscoring low SES as a amplifier for receiving , potentially via attendant stressors like resource scarcity or neighborhood disadvantage, though effect sizes remain modest and do not justify SES-exclusive interventions. These patterns hold across diverse samples, with low family wealth consistently tied to higher victimization rates among adolescents.

Evolutionary and Biological Underpinnings

Bullying behavior exhibits evolutionary roots in the establishment of dominance hierarchies observed across social mammals, including and s, where aggressive tactics secure access to resources, mates, and in competitive environments. In ancestral groups, such hierarchies likely facilitated by allocating roles and reducing through predictable power structures, with bullying analogs—such as targeted —serving as low-cost strategies for higher-status individuals to maintain control without full-scale . Empirical tests of evolutionary hypotheses indicate that bullies often derive adaptive benefits, including elevated peer status and resource gains, particularly in male adolescents where proactive correlates with short-term social advantages, though these diminish in adulthood. Biologically, twin and molecular genetic studies reveal substantial in bullying perpetration, with estimates ranging from 61% to 77% of variance attributable to genetic factors, suggesting polygenic influences that predispose individuals to aggressive dominance-seeking. These genetic underpinnings overlap with those for victimization, indicating shared where certain alleles heighten vulnerability to both roles in social conflicts, independent of shared environmental confounders like family upbringing. Hormonally, elevated testosterone levels are associated with increased bullying in some cohorts, particularly among males, as this promotes risk-taking and assertive behaviors conducive to status competition, though findings are inconsistent across prepubertal and adolescent samples. Conversely, bullies often display blunted cortisol responses, reflecting reduced physiological fear or stress reactivity, which may enable sustained aggressive pursuits without inhibitory feedback from the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Such neuroendocrine profiles align with causal mechanisms where biological predispositions interact with ecological cues to manifest bullying as an extension of evolved agonistic strategies.

Participants and Dynamics

Profiles of Bullies and Accomplices

Bullies typically exhibit proactive , characterized by deliberate and unprovoked hostile actions toward others, often justified by a positive attitude toward and a in their own dominance. Meta-analytic reviews of personality traits reveal that bullying perpetration correlates with low (r ≈ -0.25), reflecting reduced concern for others' well-being, and low (r ≈ -0.15), indicating and disregard for rules. Additionally, bullies score lower on both cognitive and affective , impairing their ability to understand or share victims' emotional distress. Demographically, boys engage in bullying at higher rates than girls, particularly in physical forms, comprising about 6-7% of students aged 8-16 who bully others regularly based on Scandinavian surveys from the 1980s-2000s. In terms of , bullies often maintain average to above-average peer acceptance, leveraging or perceived power imbalances to deter retaliation, rather than being social isolates. environments of bullies frequently involve inadequate , harsh or inconsistent , and exposure to domestic , fostering attitudes that normalize coercive control. Longitudinal studies link these traits to broader antisocial patterns, such as , though not all bullies develop persistent criminality. Accomplices in bullying, often termed or reinforcers in participant role frameworks, actively support or encourage the primary bully without initiating the themselves. join in the bullying acts, while reinforcers provide verbal encouragement or laughter, motivated by desires for group inclusion or elevated status; boys predominate in these roles, similar to bullies. These individuals often enjoy higher peer than victims or outsiders, as their alignment with the bully reinforces group hierarchies, though they exhibit less dominance than primary bullies. Prevalence varies by grade, with and reinforcers comprising 10-20% of students in self-reports from Finnish and Dutch samples, declining slightly in higher grades as social norms shift. Unlike pure bullies, accomplices may display moderate deficits but prioritize social rewards over direct power assertion.

Profiles of Victims

Victims of bullying, particularly passive or submissive types who comprise the majority, are typically characterized by internalizing psychological traits including high levels of anxiety, low , social withdrawal, and emotional sensitivity. These individuals often display reduced , poorer , and lower peer , making them more vulnerable to repeated targeting. In contrast, bully-victims—a subtype exposed to both perpetration and victimization—exhibit higher externalizing behaviors such as and difficulties alongside internalizing issues, leading to elevated risks. Demographically, bullying victimization shows modest variations: boys face higher rates of physical victimization, while girls experience more relational and verbal forms, though overall is slightly elevated among males in many studies. Physically, victims tend to be smaller in stature and perceived as weaker, contributing to their selection by aggressors. Age-wise, victimization peaks in early , with profiles stable across childhood but influenced by developmental stages where social hierarchies solidify. Socioeconomic factors elevate risk, as meta-analyses indicate low and neighborhood SES correlates positively with victimization, potentially due to reduced protective resources and heightened stress. Family environments marked by , , or overprotection further compound vulnerability, fostering insecure attachments and diminished coping abilities. Sexual minority youth, including bisexual and homosexual adolescents, report significantly higher victimization rates, often linked to perceived differences. Low social-emotional intelligence and poor peer relationships amplify these profiles across contexts.

Bystanders and Group Dynamics

Bystanders in bullying incidents are individuals who observe the without direct participation as perpetrators or victims. Peers are present during approximately 85% of bullying episodes, often serving as an that can either reinforce the bully through or inaction or intervene to de-escalate. Common bystander roles include defenders, who actively support the victim by offering emotional support such as checking on their well-being or reporting the incident to teachers in school settings; assistants or reinforcers, who aid or encourage the bully; and passive observers or outsiders, who remain uninvolved. In a survey of 64,670 adolescents across 107 U.S. middle and high schools, 39.8% reported defending behaviors, 9.3% assisting the bully, and 26.9% engaging in passive responses like ignoring the incident. Factors influencing bystander behavior include , personal relationships, and perceived risks. Positive school environments characterized by high , safety, and student connectedness correlate with increased defending odds (OR=2.64 for engagement) and reduced passive or assisting behaviors. Bystanders are more likely to defend victims with whom they share close ties, such as friends, with 60.6% intervening in such cases compared to lower rates for acquaintances; no significant sex differences in reactions were observed. Non-intervention often stems from fear of retaliation, becoming a target oneself, or uncertainty about effective responses, which perpetuates the cycle as audience presence bolsters the bully's actions. Bullying operates as a group process embedded in peer networks, where social ties and hierarchies shape participation. Longitudinal analysis of 481 elementary students across 19 classrooms revealed that bullies targeting the same victim are prone to forming friendships (estimate=0.41, p<0.05), and friends of bullies often adopt similar victimization patterns toward that target (estimate=0.74, p<0.001), indicating contagion within groups. Unlike victims, who do not cluster similarly in friendships, bullies leverage to reinforce status, with peer audiences amplifying through normative approval. Meta-analyses of school-based prevention programs demonstrate that targeting bystander intervention yields small but significant increases in defensive actions (Hedges's g=0.20), particularly in high schools, though effects on alone are negligible. These dynamics underscore bullying's reliance on collective reinforcement rather than isolated acts, with interventions disrupting group norms proving more effective than victim-focused strategies alone.

Effects and Consequences

Immediate and Short-Term Impacts on Victims

Victims of bullying often experience immediate physical harm from direct , including bruises, cuts, or more severe injuries requiring medical attention. In the short term, spanning days to weeks, bullied individuals report elevated psychosomatic symptoms such as headaches, stomachaches, and disturbances, with odds ratios indicating a doubled compared to non-victimized peers (OR = 2.39 for psychosomatic issues; OR = 1.72 for problems). These physiological responses stem from acute stress, potentially involving blunted reactivity as observed in longitudinal twin studies of children aged 5 to 10. Psychologically, immediate reactions include acute , humiliation, and emotional dysregulation, leading to tearfulness or shortly after incidents. Short-term mental health impacts are causally linked to victimization, with quasi-experimental meta-analyses revealing small but significant elevations in internalizing symptoms like anxiety and depression (Cohen's d = 0.27, 95% CI [0.05, 0.49]). Systematic reviews confirm increased odds of depression (OR = 2.21, 95% CI [1.34, 3.65]) and anxiety (OR = 1.77, 95% CI [1.34, 2.33]), alongside heightened (OR = 1.77, 95% CI [1.56, 2.02]). Behaviorally, short-term consequences manifest as social withdrawal, reduced concentration, and avoidance of or social settings to evade further harm, exacerbating isolation. Academically, victims exhibit minor but detectable declines in performance and engagement, with meta-analytic evidence showing a small (d = 0.10, 95% CI [0.06, 0.13]) and elevated odds of poor achievement (OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.06, 1.66]). These patterns hold across traditional and forms, though causality is stronger for proximal outcomes like internalizing distress than distal ones.

Long-Term Psychological and Physical Outcomes

Longitudinal studies demonstrate that individuals who experience frequent bullying victimization in childhood face substantially elevated risks of psychiatric disorders in adulthood. In a British birth cohort followed over five decades, frequent victims exhibited odds ratios of 1.95 (95% CI: 1.27–2.99) for depression, 1.65 (95% CI: 1.25–2.18) for anxiety disorders, and 2.21 (95% CI: 1.47–3.31) for suicidality at age 45, with associations persisting after controlling for childhood IQ, , and family adversities. A prospective U.S. study of tracked from ages 9–16 to young adulthood reported odds ratios of 2.7 (95% CI: 1.1–6.3) for , 3.1 (95% CI: 1.5–6.5) for , and 4.6 (95% CI: 1.7–12.5) for among victims, adjusted for baseline psychiatric symptoms and demographics. Meta-analyses of quasi-experimental designs support causal inferences for these psychological outcomes, with pooled odds ratios of 2.21 (95% CI: 1.34–3.65) for depression, 1.77 (95% CI: 1.34–2.33) for anxiety, 1.77 (95% CI: 1.56–2.02) for , and 2.13 (95% CI: 1.66–2.73) for suicide attempts, graded as "convincing" evidence under . These effects extend to broader impairment, including non-suicidal self-injury (OR=1.75, 95% CI: 1.40–2.19) and overall poor (OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.42–1.81). Physically, bullying victimization correlates with chronic decrements, including poorer self-reported general (OR=1.60, 95% CI: 1.42–1.81) and somatic symptoms like recurrent aches (OR=1.76, 95% CI: 1.53–2.03). Victims also show accelerated increases in (CRP), a of low-grade , from childhood to adulthood, independent of and , which heightens long-term cardiovascular risk. In the British cohort, frequent victims had higher odds of and required more visits in midlife, suggesting persistent physiological wear from stress responses. While psychological distress may mediate some physical associations, direct pathways via hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis dysregulation remain evident in adjusted models. Evidence-based approaches to healing from childhood bullying trauma include Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT), which helps process bullying experiences, reduce PTSD symptoms, and build coping skills, primarily for youth but with principles applicable to adults. Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) and other trauma-focused cognitive behavioral approaches are also effective. Additional strategies involve ensuring safety, practicing stress management and relaxation techniques, discussing experiences with trusted adults, and accessing trauma-informed support. For adults addressing long-term effects, standard PTSD treatments such as EMDR and trauma-focused CBT are recommended.

Impacts on Bullies and Perpetrators

Bullying perpetration in childhood and is associated with elevated risks of antisocial and criminal behaviors in adulthood. Longitudinal studies indicate that frequent bullies are approximately twice as likely to commit criminal offenses by late adolescence compared to non-bullies, with 39.2% of frequent bullies registering criminal records versus 20.4% in control groups. This pattern extends to violent crimes, where frequent childhood bullies, including females, demonstrate increased hazard ratios for offenses up to age 31, with adjusted HRs of 4.09 for males and 5.27 for females relative to non-bullies. Psychiatric outcomes for perpetrators include heightened vulnerability to , persisting from childhood risks into early adulthood, independent of comorbid victimization. Meta-analyses confirm that bullying perpetration predicts later offending and , such as conduct issues and illicit drug misuse, often foreshadowing broader antisocial trajectories. Perpetrators also exhibit increased depressive symptoms in and beyond, though these associations are bidirectional and moderated by underlying or family factors. Social and economic consequences mirror those for bully-victims but to a lesser degree; bullies show elevated rates across four of seven adult domains, including poorer financial outcomes, social relationship deficits, and overall functioning, attributable in part to maladaptive reinforced during perpetration. While short-term peer status gains may occur—evidenced by meta-analytic positive associations with dominance—these fail to offset long-term , including legal entanglements and reduced adaptive capacity. Causal pathways likely involve perpetuation of hostile attribution biases and impaired , amplifying interpersonal conflicts over time.

Potential Adaptive or Positive Aspects

Bullying has been hypothesized to serve adaptive functions in human social evolution by enabling the formation of dominance hierarchies among peers, which clarify status positions, allocate resources efficiently, and minimize escalated physical conflicts within groups. This perspective draws parallels to aggressive behaviors observed in nonhuman primates and other animals, where such hierarchies stabilize coalitions and signal fitness to potential mates. Genetic underpinnings, including heritability estimates for aggressive traits around 0.5-0.7 in twin studies, further support bullying as a facultative strategy that may yield somatic or reproductive gains in competitive environments. Among perpetrators, bullying correlates with elevated peer-perceived and status attainment, particularly when motivated by agentic goals such as dominance or acquisition, as evidenced in a of 148 samples involving over 164,000 adolescents aged 8-20. Longitudinal cohort studies, including the Dutch TRAILS sample (n=1,007, assessed from age 14 to 26), found bullies rated as more popular (p<0.001) and engaging in earlier (B=-1.19 for males, B=-1.31 for females, p<0.05). In the British NCDS cohort (n=9,829, bullying at age 16, outcomes at 55), bullies had more children on average (B=0.12 for males, B=0.14 for females, p<0.01), indicating partial reproductive benefits despite associated trade-offs like poorer self-reported in midlife. These patterns align with differences, where male bullying more often targets physical dominance and female variants emphasize relational exclusion, both potentially enhancing intrasexual competition. For victims, bullying victimization can occasionally precipitate (PTG), characterized by enhanced personal strength, relational appreciation, and resilience, as reported in retrospective studies of adults recalling school experiences. In a sample of 159 Israeli undergraduates, PTG showed a curvilinear relation to PTSD symptoms from bullying, peaking at moderate severity levels and linked to adaptive coping like cognitive reappraisal. Similarly, among 1,128 Chinese adolescents, victims with higher cognitive empathy exhibited greater subsequent PTG (β=0.12, p<0.01), suggesting interpersonal skills may transform adversity into developmental gains. Such outcomes, while not predominant—given meta-analytic evidence of net risks—highlight bullying's role in forging toughness in select individuals under supportive conditions.

Gender and Societal Variations

Gender Differences in Bullying Patterns

Boys are more frequently involved in bullying perpetration overall, particularly in direct forms such as physical and , while girls exhibit higher rates of relational bullying, which involves tactics like , rumor-spreading, and manipulation of relationships. This pattern holds across multiple studies of adolescents, where boys' tends to be overt and confrontational, reflecting greater physical dominance in same-sex interactions, whereas girls' strategies emphasize indirect harm to social standing. In terms of victimization, boys report higher exposure to physical bullying, with rates often exceeding those for girls by factors of 1.5 to 2 in settings, whereas girls experience elevated relational victimization, including and reputational attacks. Bully-victim roles—where individuals both perpetrate and suffer bullying—are disproportionately occupied by boys, comprising up to 60% of such cases in some adolescent samples, linked to higher and hierarchies favoring dominance displays. Girls, conversely, are more likely to be pure victims or uninvolved, potentially due to emphasizing relational harmony over direct conflict. Cyberbullying perpetration shows a skew, with meta-analyses reporting correlations of r=0.23 for boys across 25 studies, though age moderates this, diminishing after early as relational tactics proliferate online. Verbal bullying, including and threats, also disproportionately involves boys as both perpetrators and targets, aligning with patterns in traditional bullying where overt correlates with gender across cultures. These differences persist into , with boys comprising 70-80% of physical bullies in cross-sectional surveys, underscoring the role of gender-typical behaviors in bullying dynamics.
Bullying TypeMale Perpetration PrevalenceFemale Perpetration PrevalenceKey Source
PhysicalHigher (e.g., 15-20% of boys vs. 5-10% of girls)Lower
VerbalHigher (e.g., boys 12% vs. girls 8%)Comparable but less intense
RelationalLowerHigher (e.g., girls 18% vs. boys 10%)
CyberHigher overall (r=0.23 with )Increasing with age parity

Cultural and Cross-National Differences

Bullying prevalence among adolescents varies significantly across nations, as evidenced by large-scale surveys such as the (PISA). In PISA 2015, the exposure to bullying index, measuring frequency of victimization at least a few times per month, averaged 11% across OECD countries, but ranged widely from lows in countries like (around 7%) to highs exceeding 30% in places like the and the . For instance, the reported the highest rates among assessed nations in PISA data, with approximately 65% of students experiencing bullying at least a few times monthly, while like and showed rates below 10%. Cross-national studies indicate that victimization rates for boys ranged from 8.6% to 45.2% and for girls from 4.8% to 35.8% across 40 countries in the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) survey, highlighting consistent but varying patterns influenced by national contexts. Higher prevalence in certain developing or emerging economies, such as (44%) and (nearly 33%), contrasts with lower rates in Western European nations, potentially linked to differences in socioeconomic development, educational resources, and institutional responses rather than purely cultural universals. Cultural factors contribute to these disparities, though empirical evidence remains mixed and requires caution due to confounding variables like and policy enforcement. In hierarchical or high-power-distance societies, as per Hofstede's cultural dimensions, bullying may be more tolerated as a means of establishing dominance, whereas egalitarian emphasize anti-bullying norms from early . For example, collectivist orientations in some Asian contexts correlate with over physical forms, yet overall rates do not uniformly decrease, as seen in elevated victimization in the despite cultural emphasis on group harmony. Studies attribute higher bullying in immigrant-heavy or ethnically diverse settings to stress and minority status, where out-group dynamics amplify victimization independent of national . Despite global consistencies in bullying's relational dynamics, such as the bully-victim overlap observed across 25 countries, national interventions reflect cultural priorities: Scandinavian countries' low rates align with proactive, rights-based policies, while higher-incidence nations often lag in systematic reporting and response. These differences underscore that while bullying behaviors exhibit cross-cultural universality in form, their frequency and manifestation are modulated by societal values, enforcement mechanisms, and economic conditions, with peer-reviewed analyses emphasizing the need for context-specific data over generalized cultural stereotypes.

Contexts and Settings

Educational Environments

Bullying in educational environments, particularly K-12 , involves repeated aggressive behaviors among students characterized by a power imbalance, often occurring in peer groups during school hours. , approximately 19% of students aged 12-18 experienced bullying during the 2021-22 school year, a decline from 28% in 2010-11, potentially reflecting increased awareness and reporting mechanisms though underreporting remains common due to fear of retaliation. Prevalence peaks in at 26.3%, compared to 15.7% in high school, with verbal forms most frequent followed by and physical acts. Internationally, a multi-national study across 83 countries found 30.5% of adolescents reporting victimization, with variations tied to cultural norms around authority and . Common manifestations include physical bullying such as hitting or shoving, verbal taunts targeting appearance or performance, relational tactics like rumor-spreading or , and via school-shared devices or networks. These behaviors frequently arise in unstructured settings like playgrounds, hallways, and cafeterias, where adult supervision is minimal, facilitating that reinforce perpetrator status among peers. Patterns often involve "bully-victims" who both perpetrate and endure aggression, comprising distinct subgroups identified in longitudinal studies, with risks amplified by factors such as low , single-parent households, and prior exposure to family conflict. Victimization correlates with immediate disruptions like and declining grades, while perpetrators may exhibit conduct issues traceable to unchecked reinforcement in permissive school climates. Peer-reviewed analyses highlight classroom-level predictors including negative peer networks and strained teacher-student bonds, which sustain cycles unless disrupted by consistent oversight. In higher education, bullying shifts toward relational and verbal forms among college students, often manifesting as or academic sabotage, though remains sparser than for secondary schools with rates estimated at 10-15% in targeted surveys. Overall, school-specific vulnerabilities stem from developmental stages where social hierarchies solidify, underscoring the need for environment-tailored monitoring despite evidence of only modest reductions from broad interventions.

Workplace and Professional Settings

, also termed in some contexts, constitutes repeated and persistent negative acts directed at an employee by one or more perpetrators, typically involving a power imbalance where the target struggles to defend themselves effectively. Such acts encompass , , excessive criticism, undermining of work, or threats, distinguishing it from isolated conflicts by its systematic nature over time, often exceeding six months. Empirical prevalence estimates vary due to methodological differences like self-report versus observer measures, but cross-national surveys indicate 10-15% of workers experience it annually; for instance, a 2024 study found 10.6% of employed adults reported bullying or in the prior year. In professional environments, bullying manifests through hierarchical dynamics, such as superior-subordinate (downward bullying, comprising about 50% of cases) or relational , exacerbated by organizational stressors like high workloads or poor . Causes trace to individual perpetrator factors (e.g., low , Machiavellianism), target vulnerabilities (e.g., perceived ), and systemic issues like ambiguous structures or competitive cultures that normalize . Empirical studies highlight how unchecked minor incivilities escalate into bullying patterns, with bystanders often enabling perpetration through inaction due to fear of retaliation. Victims face heightened risks of psychological strain, including anxiety, depression, and burnout, with meta-analyses linking exposure to elevated job stress (correlation r ≈ 0.40-0.50) and reduced over time. Physiologically, it correlates with somatic symptoms like and cardiovascular issues via activation. Organizations suffer losses, with bullied employees showing 20-30% declines in performance and higher ; turnover intentions rise sharply, costing firms in and morale erosion. Gender patterns reveal inconsistencies across studies, potentially influenced by reporting biases; women report victimization at rates 1.5-2 times higher than men in some cohorts (e.g., 8% vs. 6% self-labeling), yet men perpetrate more frequently (69% of cases per U.S. surveys), often targeting women subordinates. Men tend toward direct confrontation responses, while women seek , affecting intervention outcomes. These disparities underscore causal roles of status hierarchies over innate differences, with empirical cautioning against overgeneralization due to cultural variances in disclosure.

Digital and Online Spaces

, also known as online bullying, refers to the intentional and repeated use of digital platforms to harass, threaten, humiliate, or exclude others, often leveraging and the rapid dissemination of content. Unlike traditional bullying, it occurs without physical proximity, allowing perpetrators to target victims at any time through devices like smartphones or computers, with messages persisting indefinitely and potentially reaching vast audiences via shares or screenshots. This form exploits features such as private messaging, public posts, and interactive environments, enabling tactics like doxxing, rumor-spreading, or exclusion from online groups. Prevalence among youth remains significant, with approximately 21% of U.S. students aged 12-18 who experienced also facing online harassment during the 2021-2022 school year. A 2023 survey indicated lifetime cyberbullying rates of 59.2% among adolescent girls compared to 49.5% among boys, though recent experiences show narrower gaps. data from 2022 found 46% of U.S. teens aged 13-17 had encountered at least one behavior, such as offensive name-calling or rumors, with rates rising alongside increased use. Among tweens, 20.9% reported involvement in cyberbullying as victim, perpetrator, or witness. Common platforms include social media sites like , , , and , where 2025 analyses show the highest incidence due to features enabling viral content and direct interactions. and apps facilitate private , while multiplayer online games host , griefing, or exclusion, with in gaming exacerbating aggressive behavior. Forums and gaming communities often see participation from bystanders who amplify harm through likes, shares, or pile-ons, extending the reach beyond initial perpetrators. Cyberbullying overlaps substantially with traditional forms, as many victims experience both, but its digital nature introduces distinct elements like perpetrator from physical distance and the inability to "escape" school grounds, leading to pervasive stress. Research indicates victims often report heightened psychological distress, including 93% experiencing negative emotional effects such as sadness, hopelessness, or powerlessness, alongside elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and compared to non-victims. Physical symptoms like disruption and academic decline are also documented, with chronic exposure linked to trauma-like responses in neurobiological studies of .

Institutional and High-Risk Settings

Bullying manifests prominently in institutional environments with pronounced power imbalances, enforced hierarchies, and constrained , including correctional facilities, units, long-term care residences, and psychiatric hospitals. These settings amplify risks due to factors such as overcrowding, resource scarcity, and that reward dominance, often leading to repeated victimization without effective intervention. Empirical studies indicate higher victimization rates here compared to community settings, with , , and physical assaults comprising common forms. In prisons, bullying prevalence exceeds 50% of inmates as either victims or perpetrators, driven by perceived and prisonization processes where dominance establishes informal hierarchies. A study across English facilities found over half of prisoners engaging in or experiencing bullying, including assaults and , with facilitating perpetration. Overcrowding correlates with elevated violence rates, averaging 9.1% incidents annually in high-turnover systems, exacerbating importation of pre-incarceration aggressive traits. Military contexts feature and bullying as rites enforcing cohesion, yet surveys reveal 13% of personnel report and 20% bullying, with 31% encountering discrimination-linked variants. Among deployed U.S. Army soldiers, 12% experienced bullying or , correlating with doubled risks of and depression diagnoses. Underreporting persists, with only 183 formal complaints in 2019 despite broader incidence, attributed to cultural normalization and fear of reprisal. Nursing homes exhibit senior-to-senior bullying affecting 10-20% of , predominantly verbal forms like insults and exclusion, though physical incidents occur in isolated cases. Vulnerability stems from cognitive decline, dependency, and communal living, with aggressors often exhibiting higher functioning to exploit weaker peers. Staff interventions lag due to under-recognition, despite mirroring patterns in other confined populations. Psychiatric institutions see patient-on-patient bullying in secure units, alongside bidirectional with staff, where verbal threats and physical attacks affect up to 100% of nurses annually. In high-secure hospitals for mentally ill offenders, dominance hierarchies parallel dynamics, with shaming by patients linked to staff burnout. Institutional factors like practices and symptom-driven heighten risks, though data remain limited by ethical reporting constraints.

Prevention and Intervention Approaches

Evidence-Based Prevention Strategies

School-wide programs that integrate changes, staff , and involvement have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization. A of 100 independent evaluations found that such programs decreased school-bullying perpetration by approximately 19-20% and victimization by similar margins, with stronger effects observed in European implementations compared to those . These programs typically emphasize defining bullying clearly, establishing consistent rules against it, and fostering a that promotes positive relationships through supervised activities and discussions. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), developed in in the early 1980s and adapted internationally, exemplifies a comprehensive approach backed by extensive . Key components include school-level committees to oversee , classroom curricula addressing bullying dynamics, increased playground supervision to deter incidents, and parent engagement via meetings and newsletters. A quasi-experimental study across 37 schools involving over 67,000 students reported reductions in bullying others by 25% and being bullied by 33% one year post-. Similarly, a large-scale in urban U.S. middle schools using a showed sustained decreases in bullying reports over multiple years when implemented with fidelity, though effects were moderated by school context and adherence to protocols. Bystander intervention , often integrated into broader programs, has evidence of increasing peer responses to bullying situations. A of school-based efforts indicated that these trainings significantly boosted bystander intervention rates, with effect sizes suggesting practical reductions in unchecked incidents by encouraging and skills among witnesses. Recommended actions include privately supporting the targeted classmate and reporting the incident to a trusted adult such as a teacher, which can stop bullying within seconds in many cases and reduce victimization impacts. Programs incorporating parental components, such as assignments for families to discuss bullying recognition and response, yielded additional modest reductions in victimization, as per a of post-2000 studies. Social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives that teach self-regulation, , and also contribute to prevention when embedded in anti-bullying frameworks. Systematic reviews highlight that SEL-focused programs reduce aggressive behaviors linked to bullying by 10-20%, particularly in elementary settings, by addressing underlying causal factors like poor emotional control rather than solely punitive measures. However, meta-analyses consistently note that overall effect sizes remain modest (odds ratios around 1.20-1.30), with sustained impacts requiring ongoing implementation fidelity and no evidence of large-scale elimination of bullying. Programs lacking systemic involvement or relying primarily on awareness campaigns show negligible behavioral changes, underscoring the necessity of multi-level interventions grounded in empirical program evaluations.

Effectiveness of Programs and Critiques

School-based anti-bullying programs, such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP), have demonstrated modest reductions in bullying perpetration and victimization in multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. A 2021 meta-analysis of 100 independent evaluations found that such interventions collectively reduce school bullying perpetration by approximately 19-20%, with odds ratios indicating a statistically significant effect (OR = 1.309, 95% CI: 1.24-1.38). Similarly, evaluations of the OBPP in Norwegian and U.S. settings reported relative decreases in victimization of 24-43% and perpetration reductions of 30-50% in elementary schools after 8-12 months of implementation. These effects are attributed to components like school-wide rules, classroom management training, and parent involvement, which foster empathy and bystander intervention. Despite these short-term gains, long-term sustainability remains limited, with benefits often diminishing after initial implementation phases. A 2020 of randomized trials indicated small to moderate endpoint reductions in bullying (approximately 20%), but follow-up data beyond one year showed weaker or inconsistent effects on outcomes like anxiety and depression. Programs emphasizing universal prevention, such as OBPP, perform better than targeted interventions for high-risk students, yet overall effect sizes are modest (e.g., standardized mean differences around 0.20), suggesting they influence a minority of cases while leaving underlying peer dynamics intact. Critiques highlight implementation challenges and unintended consequences that undermine program efficacy. Poor fidelity to protocols, inadequate teacher training, and lack of sustained administrative support contribute to null or negative outcomes in up to 30% of evaluations, as programs require multi-year commitment to alter entrenched school climates. Some interventions inadvertently increase bullying reports without reducing incidents, potentially due to heightened awareness rather than behavioral change, or provoke backlash from peers perceiving victims as weaker. Anti-bullying policies, often mandated alongside programs, show unclear effectiveness due to methodological weaknesses in studies, including self-report biases and failure to account for confounding factors like socioeconomic status or family environments. Further scrutiny reveals that many programs overlook root causes, such as structures or natural social hierarchies among youth, focusing instead on symptom-level interventions like training, which yield temporary attitude shifts but limited perpetration declines. A 2022 review noted that while short-term victimization drops occur, interventions rarely prevent internalizing problems long-term, possibly because they do not address causal pathways like poor impulse control or absent parental modeling. Evaluations in North American elementary underscore variability, with success tied to contextual factors like school size and , but widespread adoption has not correlated with national bullying declines, prompting calls for more rigorous, causal designs over correlational self-reports.

Role of Families and Communities

Families exert significant influence on children's bullying involvement through parenting practices that shape social competence, empathy, and conflict resolution skills. A 2024 meta-analysis of 158 studies identified authoritative parenting—marked by high warmth, consistent monitoring, and autonomy support—as a protective factor against traditional bullying victimization (r ≈ 0.10), with similar benefits for cyberbullying when warmth is emphasized. Conversely, risk factors include authoritarian control, permissiveness, parental withdrawal, and inter-parental conflict, each correlating with modestly elevated victimization rates (r ≈ 0.10). Empirical research underscores the value of targeted family interventions. Among 2,060 Spanish adolescents surveyed in 2019, those perceiving —combining , , and inductive —exhibited the lowest rates of bullying perpetration, victimization, and aggression, outperforming strict or authoritarian styles. programs that train guardians in these approaches, such as fostering explanatory over , have demonstrated reductions in child bullying behaviors by enhancing parental awareness and skills. Communities bolster prevention by creating supportive networks that extend beyond schools, though evidence for standalone programs remains less robust than for family or school-based efforts. initiatives like Big Brothers Big Sisters have reduced aggression and in at-risk youth by 25% in some evaluations, indirectly mitigating bullying through improved relationships and oversight. Collective efficacy—community members' shared willingness to intervene in harmful behaviors—amplifies these outcomes, as seen in programs integrating neighborhood monitoring, such as Baltimore's Safe Passages, which leverages local adults for student supervision. Integrating family engagement into community strategies, including parent workshops and neighborhood norms against aggression, reinforces causal pathways from home to public spaces, though long-term randomized trials are needed to quantify impacts.

Legislation Against Bullying

Legislation addressing bullying primarily targets educational settings, though provisions extend to and, in some jurisdictions, workplaces. Internationally, the Convention on the Rights of the (CRC), adopted in 1989 and ratified by 196 countries, mandates under that states protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, or abuse, including bullying, through legislative, administrative, social, and educational measures. This framework influences national laws but lacks direct enforcement mechanisms, relying on state implementation. Specific anti-bullying statutes exist in over 40 countries, often requiring schools to define bullying, establish reporting protocols, and impose sanctions, though enforcement varies. In the United States, no comprehensive prohibits bullying outright, but all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted anti-bullying statutes as of 2017, primarily governing public schools. These laws typically mandate school districts to adopt policies defining bullying—often as repeated aggressive behavior causing harm—and procedures for investigation, intervention, and parental notification. For instance, 46 states require bullying prevention programs, while 44 address occurring off-campus if it substantially disrupts school. Federal involvement arises indirectly through civil rights statutes like Title VI of the , where bullying based on race, color, or national origin can constitute discrimination enforceable by the Department of Education's . Empirical analysis of state laws from 1999 to 2017 indicates that provisions aligning with U.S. Department of Education recommendations—such as explicit enumeration of protected groups and support—correlate with 20-24% lower bullying victimization rates in compliant states. Other nations have centralized approaches. The ' Anti-Bullying Act of 2013 (Republic Act No. 10627) requires all schools to adopt policies against bullying, including counseling and sanctions up to expulsion for severe cases. Australia's laws vary by state but include federal enhancements under the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015, which empowers the eSafety Commissioner to order removal of harmful cyberbullying content. In the , directives like the 2012 Victim's Rights Directive indirectly support anti-bullying measures by requiring member states to protect minors from victimization, though dedicated bullying laws are uneven; Sweden's Work Environment Act extends protections to as a hazard. Workplace bullying legislation remains limited globally, often subsumed under occupational health and safety frameworks rather than standalone bans. In , provinces like treat severe bullying as or under codes, but no uniform federal prohibition exists outside protected . suggests that while school-focused laws with robust components reduce incidents modestly—by 15-19% in victimization per meta-analyses—standalone legislation without or yields negligible effects, highlighting as a causal determinant over mere statutory existence.

Implementation Challenges and Debates

Implementation of anti-bullying laws encounters persistent obstacles, including inadequate for educators, limited of requirements, and inconsistent administrative application, which undermine fidelity to legislative mandates. School-level factors, such as resource constraints and varying institutional contexts, further impede educators' capacity to enforce provisions effectively, as evidenced by qualitative analyses of statewide mandates. Parent engagement remains a key barrier, with policies often struggling due to difficulties in interpreting reporting protocols and fostering collaborative oversight between families and institutions. Enforcement challenges are compounded by ambiguities in defining bullying behaviors, particularly distinguishing them from typical peer conflicts, leading to underreporting and selective application in diverse educational settings. Reactive rather than proactive strategies prevail in many jurisdictions, where policies emphasize punishment over preventive measures like improved or , perpetuating cycles of victimization despite statutory requirements. Debates surrounding these laws' efficacy highlight mixed empirical outcomes, with research indicating that comprehensive statutes alone—without high-fidelity implementation grounded in evidence-based theory—yield negligible reductions in bullying incidence. Proponents argue that elements like explicit bullying definitions, off-campus jurisdiction, and mental health integration can lower victimization odds by 8-20%, as seen in analyses of state variations. Critics, however, contend that such policies often fail to alter underlying social dynamics or enforce accountability, resulting in ambiguous real-world impacts and potential overreach into non-criminal peer interactions without addressing causal factors like inadequate discipline structures. This skepticism is reinforced by North American program evaluations showing limited sustained effects, prompting calls for prioritizing cultural norm shifts over legislative mandates.

References

Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.