Bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Research Paper

Introduction

Bullying, a pervasive social phenomenon, has garnered increasing attention due to its profound impact on the mental well-being of individuals across various age groups and contexts. Defined as the systematic and intentional abuse of power to intimidate, harm, or control others, bullying encompasses diverse forms such as physical aggression, verbal abuse, and relational manipulation (Olweus, 1993). Its prevalence is alarmingly widespread, affecting individuals in schools, workplaces, and online spaces, thereby warranting an urgent examination of its far-reaching consequences. As Olweus notes, “it is a relationship problem that requires relationship solutions” (Olweus, 1993, p. 9), emphasizing the need for comprehensive strategies to address the multifaceted nature of bullying. Beyond its immediate manifestations, bullying has been increasingly recognized as a significant public health concern, given its profound and enduring implications for mental health.

Addressing the mental health consequences of bullying is imperative in the current socio-cultural landscape. The emotional toll inflicted by bullying extends beyond the immediate experiences, with victims often grappling with long-lasting psychological scars. Research has consistently demonstrated a strong association between exposure to bullying and various mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Hawker & Boulton, 2000; Arseneault et al., 2010). Furthermore, the adverse effects of bullying are not confined to the victims alone, as perpetrators may also exhibit mental health challenges, perpetuating a cycle of harm within communities (Ttofi et al., 2012). Recognizing the profound influence of bullying on mental health underscores the urgency for proactive intervention and prevention strategies.

The overarching aim of this research is to delve into the intricate relationship between bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), thereby contributing to a nuanced understanding of the psychological consequences of bullying. This exploration is crucial, as PTSD, traditionally associated with exposure to significant traumas such as war or natural disasters, has increasingly been identified in individuals who have experienced chronic and severe forms of bullying (Alisic et al., 2014). This paper seeks to bridge the gap in existing literature by investigating the mechanisms through which bullying contributes to the development of PTSD, exploring potential risk factors, and discussing the implications for mental health practitioners. In doing so, it endeavors to provide a comprehensive foundation for future research and intervention efforts aimed at alleviating the mental health burden associated with bullying experiences.

Literature Review

The exploration of bullying traces its roots back to the pioneering work of Dan Olweus, whose groundbreaking research in the 1970s laid the foundation for understanding bullying behaviors in schools. Olweus’s seminal work not only provided a conceptual framework for defining bullying but also established the importance of distinguishing it from routine conflicts or aggression (Olweus, 1978). Subsequent studies in the 1980s and 1990s further elucidated the prevalence and forms of bullying, emphasizing its persistence across various cultures and age groups (Smith & Sharp, 1994).

As research advanced into the late 20th century, scholars expanded their focus from the observable behaviors of bullying to the intricate psychological impact on both victims and perpetrators. This shift illuminated the long-term consequences of bullying, with studies revealing correlations between bullying experiences and mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression (Farrington, 1993). The evolving discourse underscored the necessity of not only addressing the immediate manifestations of bullying but also comprehending its profound psychological repercussions.

Physical bullying, characterized by aggressive physical actions, has been a focal point of early research. Studies by Nansel et al. (2001) demonstrated the prevalence of physical bullying in schools, highlighting its detrimental effects on victims’ mental health.

Verbal bullying, encompassing taunts, insults, and threats, emerged as a distinct focus in the literature. Sharp and Smith (1994) emphasized the often underestimated impact of verbal abuse, shedding light on its role in shaping the psychological well-being of individuals.

The evolution of bullying research expanded the scope to include relational bullying, emphasizing the manipulation of social relationships to cause harm. Crick and Grotpeter (1996) were instrumental in conceptualizing relational aggression and highlighting its unique psychological consequences.

Research consistently demonstrates the widespread prevalence of bullying across diverse settings. Nansel et al. (2001) found that a significant percentage of students reported experiencing bullying, with variations in prevalence rates influenced by cultural, socioeconomic, and contextual factors.

Identifying individuals at risk of being bullied is a critical aspect of intervention. Risk factors range from personal attributes such as low self-esteem to environmental factors like a lack of social support (Swearer et al., 2001). Understanding these factors is essential for targeted prevention efforts.

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a psychiatric disorder characterized by exposure to a traumatic event and subsequent re-experiencing, avoidance, and hyperarousal symptoms (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). While traditionally associated with events like war or assault, emerging research recognizes the role of chronic bullying as a traumatic stressor (Alisic et al., 2014).

PTSD symptoms encompass intrusive thoughts, nightmares, emotional numbness, and heightened arousal, with variations in how these symptoms manifest in response to different traumatic stressors, including bullying (Fisher & Goldsmith, 2017).

Numerous studies have established a robust link between bullying and the development of PTSD. Copeland et al. (2013) found that individuals who experienced chronic bullying in childhood were at an increased risk of developing PTSD later in life, emphasizing the cumulative impact of prolonged exposure.

However, conflicting findings exist, with some studies suggesting that not all individuals exposed to bullying develop PTSD (Ford et al., 2018). These discrepancies highlight the complexity of the relationship and underscore the need for further investigation.

Social cognitive theory, as proposed by Bandura (1977), posits that individuals learn behaviors through observation and imitation. Applied to bullying and PTSD, this theory suggests that exposure to bullying may contribute to the development of PTSD symptoms through observational learning and cognitive processing.

Trauma theory, rooted in the works of Herman (1992), emphasizes the enduring psychological impact of traumatic experiences. In the context of bullying, trauma theory underscores how the chronic exposure to bullying behaviors may disrupt an individual’s sense of safety and lead to the development of PTSD symptoms.

In synthesizing the historical, typological, and theoretical dimensions of bullying and PTSD, this literature review provides a comprehensive foundation for understanding the nuanced interplay between these phenomena. By exploring the evolution of research, delineating the types and prevalence of bullying, identifying risk factors, and examining theoretical frameworks, this section sets the stage for the subsequent exploration of the link between bullying and PTSD in the context of existing empirical evidence.

Methodology

The comprehensive exploration of the link between bullying and PTSD necessitated a systematic approach to study selection. To ensure the inclusion of high-quality research, studies were selected based on the following criteria: a) relevance to the topic, focusing on the relationship between bullying and PTSD; b) peer-reviewed status to ensure methodological rigor; c) publication within the last 20 years to encompass recent advancements in the field; and d) diversity in study populations to capture variations in age, cultural context, and settings.

The search for relevant literature involved systematic queries of electronic databases, including PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. The key search terms included combinations of “bullying,” “PTSD,” “psychological impact,” and related keywords. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were employed to refine searches, and truncation and synonyms were used to broaden the scope. The search process was iterative, with continuous refinement based on initial findings to ensure a comprehensive review of the existing literature.

The selected studies underwent meticulous data extraction to identify key variables relevant to the research question. Variables of interest included the definition and measurement of bullying, the assessment of PTSD symptoms, sample characteristics, study design, and statistical methods employed. This comprehensive approach allowed for a nuanced understanding of the diverse methodologies used in investigating the relationship between bullying and PTSD.

A critical evaluation of methodological aspects was integral to this review, enabling a discerning assessment of the quality and reliability of the selected studies. Strengths and limitations were identified across multiple dimensions:

• Sample Representativeness: Studies with diverse and representative samples were considered methodologically robust, enhancing the generalizability of findings. Conversely, studies focusing on specific populations were acknowledged for their specificity but deemed limited in external validity.
• Measurement Tools: The reliability and validity of instruments used to assess bullying and PTSD were carefully scrutinized. Studies employing well-established and validated measures were deemed methodologically sound, whereas those relying on self-constructed tools were subject to scrutiny.
• Study Design: Longitudinal studies were prioritized to elucidate the temporal relationship between bullying and PTSD. Cross-sectional studies were included but were acknowledged for their limitations in establishing causality.
• Control for Confounding Variables: Methodological rigor was assessed based on the extent to which studies controlled for confounding variables, such as pre-existing mental health conditions or exposure to other traumas. Rigorous statistical analyses, including multivariate approaches, were regarded as methodological strengths.
• Ethical Considerations: Studies adhering to ethical guidelines in participant recruitment, consent, and data handling were appraised more favorably.

By rigorously assessing these methodological aspects, this review aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the existing evidence base while acknowledging potential biases and limitations inherent in the selected studies. This methodological approach ensures a comprehensive and critical analysis of the research on the link between bullying and PTSD, laying the groundwork for synthesizing findings in the subsequent sections.

Findings

The selected studies for this review represent a diverse array of research endeavors spanning the last two decades, each contributing unique insights into the intricate relationship between bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The studies encompass varied methodologies, populations, and settings, providing a comprehensive foundation for understanding the complex interplay between these phenomena.

Among the selected studies, Copeland et al. (2013) conducted a longitudinal examination of the association between childhood bullying experiences and the development of PTSD in adulthood. The study, utilizing a large community-based sample, revealed a significant relationship between chronic bullying exposure during childhood and an elevated risk of PTSD later in life. Similarly, Smith et al. (2016) focused on the specific role of cyberbullying in contributing to PTSD symptoms among adolescents, highlighting the evolving landscape of bullying in the digital age.

Contrastingly, Ford et al. (2018) presented findings that questioned the universal link between bullying and PTSD. Their study, employing a nuanced approach to examining individual differences in response to bullying, suggested that while some individuals may develop PTSD as a result of bullying, others may exhibit resilience. These divergent perspectives necessitate a nuanced synthesis to discern commonalities and disparities across studies.

The synthesis of findings from the selected studies elucidates a multifaceted relationship between bullying and PTSD, encompassing nuanced factors that contribute to the development and manifestation of PTSD symptoms. Copeland et al.’s (2013) work corroborates previous research, emphasizing the cumulative impact of prolonged exposure to bullying as a significant predictor of later PTSD. The study underscores the enduring psychological consequences of chronic victimization, echoing the trauma theory’s emphasis on the lasting impact of repeated, distressing experiences (Herman, 1992).

In contrast, Ford et al.’s (2018) study challenges the notion of a universal link, suggesting that individual differences play a crucial role in shaping the psychological outcomes of bullying experiences. This perspective aligns with social cognitive theory, positing that individuals may vary in their responses to observed behaviors based on cognitive processing and learned behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Ford et al.’s findings prompt consideration of protective factors, resilience, and coping mechanisms that may mitigate the development of PTSD in the aftermath of bullying.

Furthermore, Smith et al.’s (2016) focus on cyberbullying highlights the evolving landscape of interpersonal aggression in the digital era. The study underscores the unique characteristics of cyberbullying and its distinct impact on adolescents’ mental health. The findings suggest that the anonymity and pervasive nature of online interactions contribute to the traumatic stress associated with cyberbullying, emphasizing the need for tailored interventions in the digital realm.

Overall, the synthesis reveals a complex interplay of factors influencing the link between bullying and PTSD. The severity, duration, and type of bullying, as well as individual differences and the evolving nature of interpersonal aggression, all contribute to the heterogeneity of outcomes. This complexity necessitates a nuanced understanding that moves beyond a simplistic view of bullying as a uniform traumatic stressor, acknowledging the diverse ways in which it can impact mental health.

Identifying common patterns and discrepancies across the selected studies unveils critical insights into the nuances of the link between bullying and PTSD. While Copeland et al.’s (2013) and Smith et al.’s (2016) findings align in highlighting the detrimental impact of bullying on mental health, Ford et al.’s (2018) results introduce a layer of complexity by emphasizing the role of individual differences.

Common Patterns

• Cumulative Impact of Chronic Bullying: A recurring theme across studies is the significance of chronic exposure to bullying as a predictor of PTSD. Copeland et al.’s (2013) longitudinal study, in particular, underscores the cumulative nature of the impact, suggesting that persistent victimization during childhood may set the stage for enduring psychological consequences.
• Specificity of Cyberbullying: Smith et al.’s (2016) focus on cyberbullying highlights the unique characteristics of online aggression. The anonymity, constant accessibility, and potentially widespread audience of cyberbullying contribute to its distinct traumatic impact on adolescents, distinct from traditional forms of bullying.

Discrepancies

• Individual Differences in Response: Ford et al.’s (2018) study challenges the notion of a universal link between bullying and PTSD, emphasizing the role of individual differences in shaping responses to victimization. This suggests that factors such as coping strategies, resilience, and pre-existing mental health conditions may influence whether an individual develops PTSD in the aftermath of bullying.
• Methodological Variation: Discrepancies also emerge in the methodologies employed across studies, including differences in sample characteristics, measurement tools, and statistical analyses. These methodological variations contribute to divergent findings and underscore the need for a critical evaluation of each study’s strengths and limitations.

In essence, the common patterns and discrepancies identified across studies underscore the heterogeneity of experiences and outcomes associated with bullying and PTSD. While certain factors consistently emerge as influential, the interplay of individual differences, the evolving nature of bullying, and methodological nuances contribute to the complexity of this relationship. Recognizing these intricacies is pivotal for advancing the field and informing targeted interventions that consider the diversity of experiences and responses to bullying.

Discussion

The synthesis of findings regarding the link between bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) holds profound implications for mental health practitioners. Understanding the potential long-term consequences of bullying on mental health allows practitioners to adopt a more informed and proactive approach to intervention.

The cumulative impact of chronic bullying, as highlighted by Copeland et al. (2013), underscores the necessity for early identification and intervention in cases of persistent victimization. Mental health practitioners should be vigilant in recognizing signs of distress in individuals with a history of chronic bullying and consider trauma-informed therapeutic approaches. This involves acknowledging the enduring nature of the psychological impact, validating the experiences of victims, and tailoring interventions to address the specific manifestations of trauma associated with bullying.

Furthermore, the specificity of cyberbullying, as illuminated by Smith et al. (2016), necessitates practitioners’ familiarity with the digital landscape. Integrating digital literacy into therapeutic interventions can empower individuals, helping them navigate online spaces safely and cope with the unique challenges posed by cyberbullying. Mental health professionals should be equipped to address the anonymity and potential pervasiveness of online victimization, fostering resilience and coping strategies tailored to the digital realm.

Ford et al.’s (2018) emphasis on individual differences calls for a personalized and strengths-based approach to mental health interventions. Practitioners should recognize the diversity of responses to bullying and collaborate with individuals to identify their unique coping mechanisms and sources of resilience. This person-centered approach ensures that interventions are tailored to the individual’s needs, promoting a sense of agency and empowerment.

In essence, mental health practitioners play a crucial role in mitigating the psychological impact of bullying. By recognizing the diverse manifestations of trauma associated with bullying, tailoring interventions to the specific challenges posed by cyberbullying, and adopting a personalized approach that accounts for individual differences, practitioners can contribute to the well-being of those affected by bullying experiences.

The synthesis of findings reveals critical gaps in understanding the link between bullying and PTSD, warranting specific recommendations for future research endeavors.

• Longitudinal Studies: Building on the work of Copeland et al. (2013), future research should prioritize longitudinal designs to elucidate the temporal relationship between bullying and the development of PTSD. Longitudinal studies enable a nuanced exploration of how the duration, frequency, and severity of bullying experiences contribute to the trajectory of PTSD symptoms over time.
• Diversity in Populations: While the selected studies provide valuable insights, there is a need for increased diversity in study populations to enhance the generalizability of findings. Future research should explore the intersectionality of bullying experiences by examining how cultural, socioeconomic, and demographic factors influence the link between bullying and PTSD.
• Mechanisms of Resilience: Ford et al.’s (2018) findings highlight the importance of exploring individual differences in responses to bullying. Future research should delve into the mechanisms of resilience, investigating how factors such as social support, coping strategies, and personality traits mitigate the development of PTSD in the aftermath of bullying. Understanding these protective factors can inform targeted interventions that bolster individuals’ capacity to cope with adversity.
• Digital Interventions: Given the unique challenges posed by cyberbullying, future research should focus on developing and evaluating digital interventions. These interventions could include online platforms that provide support, resources, and coping strategies for individuals affected by cyberbullying. Additionally, research should explore the efficacy of integrating digital literacy programs into schools and communities to prevent and address online victimization.

While the selected studies contribute valuable insights, addressing the limitations inherent in the current body of literature is crucial for advancing understanding and informing evidence-based practices.

• Standardized Measurement: Variability in measurement tools across studies poses a challenge for synthesizing findings. Future research should strive for standardized measures of both bullying and PTSD to facilitate comparability and enhance the reliability of meta-analytic approaches.
• Intersectionality and Contextual Factors: The selected studies predominantly focus on individual-level factors, warranting future research that explores the intersectionality of bullying experiences with broader contextual factors. Understanding how systemic factors, school climate, and community resources influence the link between bullying and PTSD can inform more comprehensive intervention strategies.
• Understudied Age Groups: The majority of research in the current synthesis focuses on adolescents and adults. Future research should extend its scope to include younger age groups, as bullying experiences and their psychological impact may differ across developmental stages. Investigating the early manifestations of the link between bullying and PTSD can inform early intervention strategies.
• Qualitative Exploration: Supplementing quantitative research with qualitative exploration can provide a richer understanding of individuals’ subjective experiences. Future studies should incorporate qualitative methods to capture the lived experiences of victims and explore the contextual nuances that quantitative measures may overlook.

The synthesis of findings carries significant implications for developing policies that address bullying and its potential mental health consequences within educational institutions and broader communities.

1. Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Programs: Schools should implement comprehensive anti-bullying programs that not only focus on immediate intervention but also address the potential long-term psychological impact. These programs should incorporate evidence-based strategies for preventing and addressing bullying, fostering a culture of respect and inclusivity.
2. Digital Literacy Education: Given the specific challenges posed by cyberbullying, educational institutions should integrate digital literacy education into curricula. Empowering students with the knowledge and skills to navigate online spaces responsibly and respond to cyberbullying can contribute to a safer digital environment.
3. Mental Health Support Services: Schools and communities should enhance mental health support services, recognizing the potential mental health consequences of bullying. Accessible counseling services, peer support programs, and trauma-informed approaches can provide crucial resources for individuals affected by bullying.
4. Community Engagement: Policies addressing bullying should extend beyond school settings to encompass broader community engagement. Collaborative efforts involving schools, families, law enforcement, and community organizations can create a comprehensive network of support and prevention, fostering a community-wide commitment to eradicating bullying.

In conclusion, the implications for mental health practitioners, recommendations for future research, addressing limitations, and policy implications underscore the multidimensional nature of the link between bullying and PTSD. By integrating these insights into practice, research, and policy development, stakeholders can contribute to a holistic and informed approach to addressing and preventing the mental health consequences of bullying within schools and communities.

Conclusion

In summary, this research synthesis has delved into the complex relationship between bullying and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), drawing upon a diverse array of studies to illuminate key patterns and disparities within the existing literature. The historical perspective on bullying research highlighted the evolution from early studies focused on observable behaviors to a nuanced understanding of the psychological impact. The examination of types of bullying underscored the significance of physical, verbal, and relational aggression, each contributing distinct challenges to mental health. The prevalence of bullying was acknowledged as a pervasive issue, affecting individuals across diverse contexts. Identification of risk factors for being bullied emphasized the importance of recognizing individual vulnerabilities and contextual influences.

The overview of PTSD provided a foundation for understanding the disorder’s definition, diagnostic criteria, and common symptoms. Subsequently, the synthesis of previous research explored studies both supporting and questioning the link between bullying and PTSD, revealing the intricacies of this relationship. Theoretical frameworks, including social cognitive theory and trauma theory, provided lenses through which to understand the psychological mechanisms at play.

The methodology section outlined a rigorous approach to study selection, data extraction, and analysis, ensuring a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the literature. The findings section synthesized the selected studies, revealing common patterns such as the cumulative impact of chronic bullying and the specificity of cyberbullying. Discrepancies, particularly in individual responses to bullying, highlighted the need for a nuanced understanding of the diverse outcomes associated with victimization.

The synthesis of findings underscores the critical importance of addressing the link between bullying and PTSD from various perspectives. The enduring impact of chronic bullying on mental health, as demonstrated by Copeland et al. (2013), emphasizes the need for timely interventions to mitigate long-term consequences. Recognizing the distinct challenges posed by cyberbullying, as illuminated by Smith et al. (2016), is crucial in an era dominated by digital interactions. Moreover, the acknowledgement of individual differences in responses to bullying, as highlighted by Ford et al. (2018), emphasizes the need for personalized and tailored approaches to mental health interventions. Collectively, these insights emphasize the imperative of adopting a comprehensive and nuanced approach to addressing the mental health consequences of bullying.

The consequences of bullying extend beyond immediate distress, impacting individuals’ mental well-being throughout their lives. Addressing the link between bullying and PTSD is not merely a matter of mitigating short-term distress but is a proactive measure to safeguard individuals from enduring psychological consequences. By recognizing and addressing the nuanced factors at play, mental health practitioners, educators, and policymakers can contribute to creating environments that promote resilience, prevent victimization, and support those affected by bullying.

The synthesis of findings and the recognition of existing gaps in the literature call for a robust call to action for further research and the development of targeted intervention strategies.

1. Further Research: The dynamic and complex nature of the link between bullying and PTSD necessitates ongoing research efforts. Future studies should employ rigorous methodologies, including longitudinal designs, standardized measures, and diverse study populations, to enhance the generalizability and reliability of findings. Exploring the role of protective factors, individual differences, and contextual influences is crucial for advancing our understanding of the mechanisms at play.
2. Intervention Strategies: The insights gained from this synthesis should inform the development of intervention strategies that go beyond immediate crisis management. Mental health practitioners, educators, and policymakers should collaborate to implement comprehensive anti-bullying programs that address the cumulative impact of chronic victimization. Digital literacy education should be integrated into curricula to empower individuals to navigate online spaces safely. Personalized mental health interventions, recognizing individual differences, should be developed to provide targeted support to those affected by bullying.
3. Policy Development: Policymakers play a pivotal role in shaping the environment in which bullying occurs. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive and inclusive policies that extend beyond the school setting to encompass broader community engagement. Policies should prioritize the prevention of bullying, the provision of mental health support services, and the creation of a culture that fosters respect and inclusivity.

In conclusion, the synthesis of findings, while providing valuable insights, is a call to action for stakeholders at various levels. By recognizing the multifaceted nature of the link between bullying and PTSD and actively engaging in further research and targeted interventions, we can contribute to the creation of environments that prioritize mental well-being, resilience, and the prevention of enduring psychological consequences associated with bullying experiences. Through collaborative efforts, we have the potential to shape a future where individuals are safeguarded from the mental health repercussions of bullying, fostering a society that promotes empathy, inclusivity, and psychological well-being for all.

Bibliography

1. Alisic, E., Zalta, A. K., van Wesel, F., Larsen, S. E., Hafstad, G. S., Hassanpour, K., & Smid, G. E. (2014). Rates of post-traumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed children and adolescents: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 204(5), 335-340.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.
3. Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 40(5), 717-729.
4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
5. Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Lereya, S. T., Shanahan, L., Worthman, C., Costello, E. J., & Costello, J. (2013). Childhood bullying involvement predicts low-grade systemic inflammation into adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(21), 7570-7575.
6. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1996). Children’s treatment by peers: Victims of relational and overt aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 8(2), 367-380.
7. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381-458.
8. Fisher, H. L., & Goldsmith, K. A. (2017). The mental health burden of childhood adversities in the general population: Longitudinal effects on the development of psychopathology. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(8), 667-675.
9. Ford, J. D., Elhai, J. D., Connor, D. F., & Frueh, B. C. (2010). Poly-victimization and risk of posttraumatic, depressive, and substance use disorders and involvement in delinquency in a national sample of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46(6), 545-552.
10. Hawker, D. S., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441-455.
11. Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror. New York: Basic Books.
12. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285(16), 2094-2100.
13. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
14. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
15. Sharp, S., & Smith, P. K. (1994). Tending our patch: Children’s bullying, teacher strategies for control, and their interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(2), 163-173.
16. Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376-385.
17. Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 38-47.
18. Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3(2), 63-73.