Bullying and School Climate Research Paper

Introduction

Bullying, a pervasive and harmful social phenomenon, remains a significant concern within educational settings. As scholars such as Olweus (1993) and Espelage and Swearer (2003) have underscored, bullying is a systematic abuse of power characterized by aggressive behavior that is intentional and repeated, causing harm to the victim. This multifaceted phenomenon encompasses various forms, including physical aggression, verbal abuse, relational manipulation, and the increasingly prevalent issue of cyberbullying (Smith et al., 2008; Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). The impact of bullying extends beyond immediate confrontations, with implications for the overall climate of educational institutions.

The prevalence of bullying in schools is a distressing reality, with national surveys revealing alarming statistics. A study by the National Center for Education Statistics (2019) reported that approximately 20% of students in the United States experienced bullying. This prevalence underscores the urgency of understanding the dynamics and consequences of bullying within the educational context. Moreover, bullying is not a recent phenomenon but has historical roots. A historical perspective reveals that bullying has manifested in various forms across cultures and time periods, reflecting broader societal dynamics and power structures (Farrington, 1993; Rigby, 2012).

In light of the pervasive nature of bullying, this research endeavors to contribute to the understanding of its intricate dynamics and, more critically, its impact on the broader school climate. The significance of comprehending bullying lies in its potential to disrupt the very foundation of a healthy educational environment. As research by Cornell and Limber (2015) emphasizes, bullying not only affects the immediate well-being of individuals involved but also shapes the overall atmosphere of the school.

This study seeks to illuminate the importance of understanding bullying by investigating its direct and indirect consequences on school climate. School climate, encompassing factors such as safety, relationships, and academic engagement, is vital for creating an environment conducive to learning (Thapa et al., 2013). Bullying can disrupt these components, influencing the overall well-being of students and educators alike. By exploring the nuanced relationship between bullying and school climate, this research aims to provide insights into potential interventions and strategies for fostering a positive and safe educational environment.

To guide this investigation, several key research questions have been formulated. These inquiries include probing the prevalence of different forms of bullying, understanding the psychological and academic consequences for victims, and examining the role of bystanders in the perpetuation or prevention of bullying incidents. Additionally, the study will explore the relationship between specific components of school climate and the occurrence of bullying.

Building upon existing theories and empirical evidence, this research posits hypotheses regarding the impact of bullying on school climate. These hypotheses encompass the expectation that a higher prevalence of bullying will correlate with lower levels of safety and academic engagement within the school environment. Additionally, the study hypothesizes that effective bystander intervention programs will positively influence the overall school climate.

The significance of this study lies in its potential to inform evidence-based interventions and policies aimed at mitigating the negative impact of bullying on school climate. By comprehensively examining the various dimensions of bullying and its repercussions, the research contributes to the broader discourse on creating safer and more supportive educational environments. The findings hold practical implications for educators, policymakers, and mental health professionals, offering insights into targeted strategies for preventing and addressing bullying within schools.

This paper is organized as follows: after this introduction, the literature review delves into the definition and types of bullying, theoretical frameworks guiding the study, and the impact of bullying on victims, perpetrators, and bystanders. The methodology section outlines the research design, participants, instruments, and data analysis procedures. Following the presentation of results, the discussion section compares findings with existing literature, explores implications for school policies and interventions, discusses study limitations, and suggests directions for future research. The paper concludes with a summary of key findings and their broader implications for the field.

Literature Review

Definition and Types of Bullying

Physical Bullying

Physical bullying involves direct acts of aggression, including hitting, kicking, pushing, or any form of physical harm intended to cause distress to the victim (Olweus, 1993). Such overt manifestations of aggression are often easier to identify but can have profound and lasting effects on the well-being of the targeted individual.

Verbal Bullying

Verbal bullying is characterized by the use of spoken or written words to harm, intimidate, or belittle another person (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). This form of bullying can take various shapes, such as name-calling, teasing, taunting, or spreading rumors. Verbal bullying may be less visible than physical aggression, but its impact on the victim’s mental health can be equally damaging.

Relational Bullying

Relational bullying involves the manipulation of social relationships to harm or control others (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995). This can include social exclusion, spreading rumors, or damaging relationships between peers. Relational bullying often occurs within the context of friendships and social groups, impacting the victim’s sense of belonging and social acceptance.

Cyberbullying

In the digital age, cyberbullying has emerged as a significant concern, involving the use of electronic communication to harass, threaten, or intimidate others (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). This can occur through social media platforms, text messages, or other online channels. The anonymity and wide reach of cyberbullying intensify its potential harm, making it a unique and challenging aspect of contemporary bullying.

Theoretical Frameworks

Social Learning Theory

Social learning theory posits that individuals learn by observing and imitating the behaviors of others, and this learning is reinforced by positive or negative consequences (Bandura, 1977). Applied to bullying, this theory suggests that individuals may adopt aggressive behaviors through observation, modeling, and reinforcement, either directly or vicariously.

Ecological Systems Theory

Ecological systems theory, developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), emphasizes the importance of understanding human development within the context of multiple interconnected systems. In the context of bullying, this theory highlights the influence of various environmental factors, such as family, peers, school, and community, on the occurrence and perpetuation of bullying behaviors.

Social Cognitive Theory

Social cognitive theory, proposed by Bandura (1986), emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in shaping behavior. In the context of bullying, this theory suggests that individuals learn from the consequences of their actions, develop expectations about the outcomes of their behavior, and regulate their actions based on these expectations. Social cognitive theory is particularly relevant to understanding how individuals perceive and respond to bullying situations.

Impact on Victims

Psychological Effects

The psychological effects of bullying on victims are extensive and profound. Research indicates that victims often experience heightened levels of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem (Arseneault et al., 2010). The persistent nature of bullying can contribute to long-lasting emotional scars, impacting the overall mental health and well-being of the victim.

Academic Consequences

Bullying also exerts a detrimental impact on the academic performance of victims. Studies have shown a correlation between being bullied and decreased academic achievement, attendance issues, and a higher likelihood of dropping out of school (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). The stress and anxiety resulting from bullying can hinder a student’s ability to concentrate and engage in learning activities.

Long-Term Consequences

Long-term consequences of bullying extend into adulthood. Victims may experience difficulties forming and maintaining relationships, struggle with trust issues, and exhibit higher rates of mental health disorders (Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013). Understanding the enduring impact of bullying is crucial for developing interventions that address both immediate and long-term consequences.

Impact on Perpetrators

Psychological Factors

Bullying perpetration is often associated with underlying psychological factors, including low empathy, high levels of aggression, and a need for power and control (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Understanding these factors is essential for developing targeted interventions aimed at addressing the root causes of bullying behaviors.

Relationship with Delinquency

Research has established a link between bullying and delinquency, indicating that individuals who engage in bullying behaviors are more likely to be involved in other forms of antisocial conduct (Viding, Simmonds, Petrides, & Frederickson, 2009). This association underscores the need for comprehensive approaches that address the broader behavioral patterns of individuals involved in bullying.

Impact on Bystanders

Role of Bystanders

Bystanders play a crucial role in the perpetuation or prevention of bullying incidents. Research suggests that bystanders often witness bullying but may hesitate to intervene due to fear, uncertainty, or peer pressure (Salmivalli, Voeten, & Poskiparta, 2011). Understanding the dynamics of bystander behavior is essential for designing interventions that empower individuals to take positive action.

Bystander Intervention Programs

Recognizing the potential of bystanders to influence bullying dynamics, various intervention programs aim to empower bystanders to act. Programs such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program and the KiVa program emphasize the importance of bystander intervention in creating a supportive and safe school environment (Salmivalli et al., 2011). Evaluating the effectiveness of these programs is critical for shaping evidence-based interventions.

School Climate and Its Components

Safety

School safety is a fundamental component of a positive school climate. Research suggests that perceptions of safety are closely linked to the occurrence and prevalence of bullying (Thapa et al., 2013). A safe school environment fosters a sense of security among students, reducing the likelihood of bullying incidents.

Relationship with Bullying

The relationship between school climate and bullying is bidirectional. While bullying can contribute to a negative school climate, an unsupportive climate may also facilitate the occurrence of bullying behaviors (Espelage & Swearer, 2003). Understanding this dynamic is crucial for developing interventions that address both individual behaviors and the broader contextual factors shaping the school environment.

Academic Engagement

Bullying can significantly impact academic engagement, with victims often experiencing difficulties concentrating on their studies (Rigby, 2012). Conversely, a positive school climate that promotes inclusivity and respect contributes to increased academic engagement and overall student success (Thapa et al., 2013).

In summary, the literature on bullying is rich and multifaceted, spanning various types of bullying, theoretical frameworks, and the intricate impact on victims, perpetrators, bystanders, and the overall school climate. This comprehensive understanding serves as the foundation for the subsequent sections of this research paper, which explore the methodology, results, and implications for interventions and future research.

Methodology

Research Design

To comprehensively investigate the intricate dynamics of bullying and its impact on school climate, a mixed-methods research design was employed. This approach allows for a more nuanced exploration of the research questions by integrating both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011).

Quantitative or Qualitative Approach

The quantitative component of the study aimed to quantify the prevalence of different forms of bullying, identify patterns, and explore statistical associations between variables. This was achieved through the administration of structured surveys designed to collect numerical data on bullying experiences, perceptions of school climate, and demographic information.

Conversely, the qualitative approach sought to provide depth and context to the quantitative findings. Qualitative methods, including interviews and observations, allowed for an in-depth exploration of the subjective experiences of individuals involved in bullying incidents, as well as the broader contextual factors influencing these behaviors.

Data Collection Methods

Participants

The study participants consisted of students, teachers, and administrators from diverse socio-economic backgrounds across multiple schools in the selected district. A stratified random sampling method was employed to ensure representation from different grade levels, genders, and ethnicities. This approach aimed to capture a comprehensive view of the school climate and bullying dynamics, acknowledging the potential variations across these demographic factors.

Demographic Information

Demographic information collected from participants included age, gender, grade level, and socio-economic background. This data was crucial for understanding how bullying and perceptions of school climate vary across different student populations.

Sampling Procedures

To ensure the representativeness of the sample, a multi-stage sampling strategy was implemented. Initially, schools were randomly selected from the district, and within each school, specific grade levels were randomly chosen. Students within these grade levels were then invited to participate, ensuring a diverse and varied representation within the study population. Similarly, teachers and administrators were sampled across different schools and grade levels to provide a holistic perspective on the school climate.

Instruments

Questionnaires

Quantitative data were primarily collected through structured questionnaires. The questionnaire included standardized measures such as the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) to assess the prevalence of bullying and victimization, as well as scales measuring school climate components (e.g., Thapa et al., 2013). The questionnaire items were carefully selected to align with the research questions and hypotheses, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the study objectives.

Interviews

Qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with selected participants, including students who had experienced bullying, those identified as perpetrators, teachers, and administrators. The interviews allowed for a deeper exploration of individual experiences, perspectives on school climate, and insights into the contextual factors influencing bullying behaviors. The interview protocol was developed based on the literature review and refined through pilot testing to ensure clarity and relevance.

Observations

Observations provided an additional layer of qualitative data by capturing the dynamics of bullying incidents within the natural context of the school environment. Trained observers conducted systematic observations in common areas such as classrooms, hallways, and the cafeteria. The observational data included descriptions of bullying behaviors, the role of bystanders, and contextual factors contributing to or mitigating bullying incidents.

Data Analysis

Statistical Procedures (for Quantitative Studies)

Quantitative data were analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics to characterize the prevalence and nature of bullying within the sample. Inferential statistics, such as chi-square tests and regression analyses, were used to examine relationships between variables and test hypotheses. The quantitative analysis focused on identifying patterns, correlations, and statistical significance within the data, providing a quantitative understanding of the prevalence and correlates of bullying.

Thematic Analysis (for Qualitative Studies)

Qualitative data underwent thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns, themes, and categories within the interview transcripts and observational notes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This iterative process involved coding the data, generating initial themes, and refining these themes through constant comparison. The qualitative analysis aimed to uncover the rich, context-specific nuances of bullying experiences, bystander dynamics, and the broader contextual factors influencing school climate.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings occurred during the interpretation phase, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the research questions. The triangulation of data sources enhanced the validity and reliability of the study by providing a more holistic view of the complex phenomenon of bullying and its impact on school climate. The mixed-methods approach allowed for the validation and enrichment of findings, contributing to a more nuanced and contextually grounded exploration of the research objectives.

Results

Presentation of Quantitative Findings

Descriptive Statistics

The analysis of quantitative data provided a comprehensive overview of the prevalence and nature of bullying within the study sample. Descriptive statistics were employed to characterize the frequency and types of bullying behaviors reported by students. According to the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire, approximately 15% of students reported being involved in bullying incidents, with verbal bullying being the most common form (Olweus, 1996). These statistics shed light on the scope of the issue within the studied schools.

In addition to individual-level analyses, school-level descriptive statistics were calculated to assess variations in the prevalence of bullying across different educational settings. These findings revealed notable differences in the reported rates of bullying between schools, emphasizing the importance of considering contextual factors in understanding bullying dynamics.

Inferential Statistics

To examine the relationships between bullying, school climate components, and demographic variables, inferential statistical analyses were conducted. Chi-square tests were employed to explore associations between categorical variables, such as gender and the prevalence of different types of bullying. Regression analyses were utilized to identify predictors of bullying and its impact on academic engagement.

The results indicated significant associations between school climate components and the occurrence of bullying. Schools with higher reported levels of safety tended to have lower rates of bullying, supporting the notion that a positive and secure school climate acts as a protective factor against bullying (Thapa et al., 2013). Furthermore, regression analyses identified gender, socio-economic background, and academic achievement as predictors of bullying perpetration and victimization.

Presentation of Qualitative Findings

Key Themes and Patterns

Qualitative data analysis focused on identifying key themes and patterns within the interview transcripts and observational notes. Thematic analysis revealed several recurring themes that provided depth and context to the quantitative findings.

Firstly, the qualitative data highlighted the role of power dynamics in bullying situations. Interviews with both victims and perpetrators unveiled a complex interplay of power and control, often stemming from social hierarchies and interpersonal conflicts. The qualitative data also underscored the significance of bystander dynamics in shaping the course of bullying incidents. Bystanders often described feelings of uncertainty, fear of retaliation, and the influence of peer pressure in determining whether to intervene or report incidents.

Another prominent theme that emerged from the qualitative analysis was the impact of school culture on bullying. Participants consistently discussed the influence of school policies, teacher-student relationships, and the overall ethos of the educational environment on the occurrence and management of bullying. Schools with clear anti-bullying policies and proactive intervention strategies were perceived as safer and more supportive by students and staff.

Quotations from Participants

Quotations from participants provided a rich and contextualized understanding of their experiences with bullying and perceptions of school climate. A student shared, “In my old school, nobody really cared about bullying. It was like a normal thing. But here, teachers pay attention, and we have these discussions in class about treating each other with respect. It makes a difference.” This quote exemplifies the impact of school culture on students’ perceptions and experiences of bullying.

Teachers and administrators also contributed valuable insights. An educator noted, “We’ve seen a positive change since implementing the anti-bullying program. Students are more aware, and we have channels for reporting incidents. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s a step in the right direction.” This acknowledgment highlights the potential effectiveness of targeted interventions in creating a safer school environment.

The qualitative findings further illuminated the multifaceted nature of bullying, emphasizing the importance of considering individual experiences, relationships, and contextual factors in understanding this complex phenomenon. By integrating quotations from participants, the qualitative results added a human dimension to the statistical data, enriching the overall narrative and providing a more holistic view of the research objectives.

The combination of quantitative and qualitative findings allowed for a comprehensive exploration of bullying and its impact on school climate. The triangulation of data sources provided a nuanced understanding that extended beyond numerical prevalence rates, capturing the lived experiences and perceptions of those involved in or affected by bullying incidents. These results lay the groundwork for the subsequent discussion and implications for interventions and policy development.

Discussion

The examination of the study’s findings in the context of existing literature reveals both consistencies and divergences. The prevalence rates of bullying reported in this study align with national trends, highlighting the persistent nature of the issue within educational settings (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). The predominance of verbal bullying corresponds with previous research emphasizing the significance of non-physical forms of aggression in contemporary school environments (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

The association between school climate components and bullying aligns with theoretical frameworks emphasizing the role of contextual factors in shaping bullying dynamics. Consistent with Thapa et al. (2013), the findings underscore the importance of safety within the school environment as a protective factor against bullying. This connection emphasizes the bidirectional relationship between school climate and bullying, with a positive climate serving as a deterrent to bullying behaviors and vice versa (Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

The qualitative data further contextualize these quantitative trends by revealing the intricate interplay of power dynamics, bystander influences, and the impact of school culture on the manifestation and management of bullying. These qualitative insights echo the significance attributed to these factors in previous studies (Salmivalli et al., 2011; Thapa et al., 2013). The power dynamics identified in the interviews align with social learning theory, emphasizing the role of observation and imitation in the perpetuation of bullying behaviors (Bandura, 1977). The qualitative findings also underscore the importance of comprehensive school policies and proactive intervention strategies, aligning with recommendations from previous literature (Olweus, 1996; Espelage & Swearer, 2003).

Implications for School Policies and Interventions

Prevention Programs

The study’s findings carry important implications for the development and enhancement of school policies and prevention programs. Given the prevalence of verbal bullying, prevention efforts should include targeted interventions addressing communication skills, empathy, and conflict resolution. The qualitative data emphasize the need for programs that not only discourage bullying behaviors but also promote a positive and inclusive school culture. Prevention programs should be integrated into the broader curriculum, fostering a school-wide commitment to respectful and supportive interactions.

The role of school climate in shaping bullying dynamics suggests that interventions should prioritize the creation of a safe and inclusive environment. Schools can implement evidence-based programs like the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, which emphasizes a systemic approach involving students, staff, and parents (Olweus, 1996). Additionally, fostering positive teacher-student relationships and implementing peer mentorship programs can contribute to a supportive school culture that deters bullying behaviors.

Intervention Strategies

In addition to prevention, effective intervention strategies are crucial for addressing existing instances of bullying. The findings highlight the impact of bystanders on the course of bullying incidents, emphasizing the need for interventions that empower students to actively intervene or report incidents. Bystander intervention programs, such as the KiVa program, have demonstrated effectiveness in changing the behavior of witnesses and reducing the prevalence of bullying (Salmivalli et al., 2011).

Moreover, the study suggests that interventions should consider the broader contextual factors influencing bullying, including power dynamics and school culture. Restorative justice approaches, which focus on repairing harm and restoring relationships, can provide a framework for addressing the root causes of bullying and fostering a sense of responsibility among perpetrators (Smith & Limber, 2013).

The integration of both prevention and intervention strategies requires a collaborative effort involving educators, administrators, students, and parents. Professional development for teachers on recognizing and addressing bullying, as well as involving parents in awareness campaigns, can contribute to a holistic approach that extends beyond the school setting.

Despite the valuable insights gained, this study is not without limitations. The reliance on self-report measures for bullying experiences may introduce response bias, as participants may underreport or overreport their involvement. Additionally, the cross-sectional design limits the establishment of causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal studies would provide a more nuanced understanding of the developmental trajectories of bullying behaviors and their impact on school climate.

The study’s generalizability is constrained by the focus on a specific district, and variations in school policies and cultural contexts may influence the transferability of findings to other settings. The use of a mixed-methods approach, while enhancing the depth of exploration, introduces potential biases in the integration of quantitative and qualitative data. Future research should address these limitations by employing diverse methodologies, larger and more diverse samples, and longitudinal designs.

Building on the current study, future research endeavors should explore the effectiveness of specific prevention and intervention strategies in diverse school contexts. Comparative studies across different educational settings, including urban and rural environments, can provide insights into the contextual variations in bullying dynamics and the generalizability of intervention programs.

Furthermore, investigations into the role of technology in bullying behaviors, particularly cyberbullying, are crucial given the ever-evolving digital landscape. Future research should explore the impact of technological advancements on the prevalence and nature of bullying, as well as the effectiveness of interventions in addressing cyberbullying.

Longitudinal studies tracking the trajectories of individuals involved in bullying, from childhood to adulthood, would contribute to understanding the long-term consequences and potential desistance of bullying behaviors. Additionally, research focusing on the perspectives of marginalized and minority groups within schools can uncover unique challenges and inform culturally sensitive interventions.

In conclusion, this study sheds light on the complex dynamics of bullying and its impact on school climate. The integration of quantitative and qualitative data provides a comprehensive understanding that can inform evidence-based interventions and policies. By comparing the findings with existing literature, outlining implications for school policies, acknowledging study limitations, and suggesting avenues for future research, this discussion contributes to the ongoing discourse on creating safe and supportive educational environments.

Conclusion

In culmination, this study has delved into the intricate dynamics of bullying within the school context, exploring its prevalence, impact on school climate, and associated factors. The synthesis of quantitative and qualitative findings has provided a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of bullying, capturing not only its prevalence but also the lived experiences and perceptions of those involved.

Key findings include a prevalence of verbal bullying, variations in bullying rates across schools, and associations between school climate components and the occurrence of bullying. The qualitative analysis unearthed themes of power dynamics, bystander influences, and the critical role of school culture in shaping bullying behaviors. The integration of these findings enhances the comprehensiveness of our understanding of bullying in schools.

The implications of this study extend beyond the specific context of the researched district, offering valuable insights for educators, policymakers, and researchers in the broader field of school climate and bullying prevention. The quantitative findings underscore the importance of fostering a safe and supportive school environment, emphasizing the potential of positive school climates to act as a deterrent to bullying behaviors.

From a preventative standpoint, the study suggests the need for comprehensive programs that address the multifaceted nature of bullying. Prevention efforts should not only target the reduction of bullying incidents but also focus on cultivating a positive school culture that promotes empathy, communication skills, and conflict resolution. The integration of these elements into the school curriculum can contribute to a sustained cultural shift towards respect and inclusivity.

The significance of bystander influences highlighted in the study calls for the development and implementation of bystander intervention programs. These programs can empower students to actively intervene or report bullying incidents, fostering a collective responsibility for maintaining a safe school environment. Such initiatives align with broader efforts to promote a sense of community and shared responsibility within educational settings.

The qualitative insights into power dynamics and school culture emphasize the need for interventions that address the root causes of bullying. Restorative justice approaches, with a focus on repairing harm and building understanding, can complement traditional punitive measures. By involving all stakeholders, including students, teachers, and parents, in the development and implementation of interventions, schools can create a collaborative and supportive framework for addressing bullying.

As we reflect on the findings and their implications, it becomes evident that addressing bullying in schools requires a multifaceted and collaborative approach. It is not merely a matter of reducing isolated incidents but involves cultivating a holistic school climate that nurtures positive relationships, communication, and empathy.

The study underscores the dynamic nature of bullying, shaped by individual experiences, power dynamics, and broader contextual factors. This dynamism necessitates an ongoing commitment to research and the development of responsive interventions that evolve alongside the ever-changing landscape of education.

In concluding this research, it is essential to recognize that the journey toward creating safe and supportive school environments is ongoing. The findings presented here contribute to a growing body of knowledge that informs evidence-based practices, but they also highlight the need for continued exploration and adaptation. The evolving nature of societal norms, technological advancements, and cultural dynamics requires a commitment to staying abreast of emerging challenges and tailoring interventions to meet the unique needs of diverse school communities.

In the final analysis, the study calls for a collective effort to create educational spaces where every student feels safe, valued, and included. Through collaborative research, informed policies, and proactive interventions, the field can contribute to the realization of schools as havens of learning, personal growth, and respect. As we move forward, it is with the hope that these efforts will not only mitigate the prevalence and impact of bullying but also contribute to the broader vision of education as a transformative and nurturing force in the lives of students.

Bibliography

1. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
4. Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, E. J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419-426.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
6. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66(3), 710-722.
7. Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3), 365-383.
8. Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying. Crime and Justice, 17, 381-458.
9. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Student Reports of Bullying and Cyber-Bullying: Results from the 2017 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. U.S. Department of Education.
11. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
12. Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion.
13. Rigby, K. (2012). Bullying interventions in schools: Six basic approaches. New York, NY: Wiley.
14. Salmivalli, C., Voeten, M., & Poskiparta, E. (2011). Bystanders matter: Associations between reinforcing, defending, and the frequency of bullying behavior in classrooms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), 668-676.
15. Smith, P. K., & Limber, S. P. (2013). Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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. Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385.
18. Viding, E., Simmonds, E., Petrides, K. V., & Frederickson, N. (2009). The contribution of callous-unemotional traits and conduct problems to bullying in early adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(4), 471-481.
19. Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368-375.