Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Bullying Research Paper

Introduction

Bullying is a pervasive social issue that transcends geographical boundaries and cultural contexts, impacting individuals across diverse communities and age groups. The definition of bullying varies across disciplines, encompassing physical, verbal, and relational aggression, and involving an imbalance of power or perceived power (Olweus, 1993; Smith et al., 1999). This multifaceted nature of bullying necessitates an in-depth exploration that goes beyond traditional conceptualizations, prompting a consideration of cultural nuances in its understanding. The prevalence of bullying on a global scale is alarming, with studies indicating its widespread occurrence in schools, workplaces, and online spaces (Craig & Pepler, 2007; Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). This ubiquity underscores the need for a comprehensive examination of bullying from cross-cultural perspectives to better address its complex manifestations and design effective preventive measures.

Understanding bullying through a cross-cultural lens is crucial for several reasons. Cultural factors significantly influence how individuals perceive, interpret, and respond to bullying (Gini et al., 2008). Variations in cultural norms, values, and power dynamics shape the manifestation and tolerance of bullying behaviors (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011). Moreover, cultural diversity introduces unique challenges and opportunities for addressing bullying, requiring a nuanced and context-specific approach to intervention (Espelage et al., 2013). By investigating cross-cultural perspectives, this research aims to contribute to a more comprehensive and culturally sensitive understanding of bullying, providing a foundation for developing tailored strategies that resonate with the diversity of human experiences.

The primary objective of this research paper is to delve into the multifaceted dimensions of bullying through a cross-cultural lens. By synthesizing existing literature, analyzing cultural variations in the definition and prevalence of bullying, and exploring the impact of cultural values on coping mechanisms, the paper seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of this complex social phenomenon. In doing so, the research aims to bridge gaps in the current knowledge base, contributing to a more holistic comprehension of bullying that can inform intervention strategies with greater cultural relevance.

To guide this exploration, the research paper addresses the following key questions: How do different cultures define and perceive bullying? What cultural factors influence the manifestation and tolerance of bullying behaviors? How do individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds cope with the impact of bullying, and how do cultural values shape these coping mechanisms? Additionally, the paper proposes hypotheses based on the expectation that cultural variations will significantly influence the prevalence, nature, and response to bullying, thereby emphasizing the need for culture-specific interventions to effectively address this global concern.

 Literature Review

Overview of Bullying Research

Historical Context

Bullying research has evolved significantly over the years, reflecting a growing awareness of its detrimental effects on individuals and communities. Historically, early studies primarily focused on overt, physical forms of aggression. However, the definition expanded to encompass verbal and relational aggression, acknowledging the subtleties inherent in bullying dynamics (Olweus, 1993). The landmark Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, initiated in the 1980s, marked a turning point by introducing a comprehensive approach to address bullying in schools, emphasizing the importance of a whole-school intervention strategy (Olweus, 1991). Since then, research has increasingly recognized the need for a broader understanding of bullying that considers cultural variations in its manifestation and impact.

Theoretical Frameworks

Theoretical frameworks have played a crucial role in shaping the conceptualization and understanding of bullying. Social cognitive theories, such as Bandura’s social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), have highlighted the role of observational learning and environmental influences in the development of aggressive behavior. The social-ecological model (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) emphasizes the impact of multiple systems, including individual, family, school, and community, on bullying dynamics. These frameworks lay the foundation for comprehending the intricate interplay of factors contributing to bullying behaviors, setting the stage for a more nuanced exploration of how cultural factors intersect with these theories.

Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Bullying

Variations in Cultural Definitions of Bullying

Cultural diversity introduces variations in the definitions and perceptions of bullying. For example, collectivist cultures may place a greater emphasis on group harmony, leading to underreporting of bullying incidents to maintain social cohesion (Kim et al., 2011). In contrast, individualistic cultures might prioritize individual rights, potentially resulting in heightened awareness and reporting of bullying behaviors (Gini et al., 2008). Recognizing these cultural nuances is essential for developing culturally sensitive measures and interventions that align with diverse conceptualizations of bullying.

Cultural Factors Influencing Bullying Behavior

Cultural factors significantly shape the manifestation and tolerance of bullying behaviors. Power distance, a cultural dimension indicating the acceptance of hierarchical authority, can influence the prevalence of bullying in societies with greater power differentials (Hofstede, 1980). Additionally, cultural norms around masculinity, femininity, and gender roles may impact the types of bullying behaviors exhibited (Smith et al., 2002). Investigating these cultural influences provides a comprehensive understanding of the contextual factors that contribute to the complexity of bullying dynamics.

Cultural values, such as individualism-collectivism, influence how individuals and communities respond to bullying. In collectivist cultures, where group harmony is prioritized, interventions may need to focus on community-based approaches that involve families and educators (Espelage et al., 2013). Conversely, in individualistic cultures, emphasis may be placed on empowering individuals to speak out against bullying and seek support. Exploring these cultural nuances enhances our understanding of the social dynamics surrounding bullying and informs the development of interventions that align with cultural values.

While numerous anti-bullying interventions exist, their effectiveness may vary across cultures. The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, initially developed in Norway, has been widely implemented and evaluated, showing positive outcomes in reducing bullying (Olweus, 1991; Ttofi et al., 2011). However, the applicability of such programs in diverse cultural contexts remains a topic of debate. Culturally tailored interventions, such as the KiVa program in Finland (Salmivalli et al., 2011), highlight the importance of considering cultural nuances in designing effective prevention strategies. This section of the literature review underscores the need for interventions that acknowledge cultural diversity and adapt evidence-based practices to suit specific cultural contexts, thereby maximizing their impact on reducing bullying behaviors.

Methodology

Research Design

Sampling Method

To capture a diverse range of cultural perspectives on bullying, a stratified random sampling approach will be employed. This method allows for the inclusion of participants from various cultural backgrounds, ensuring a representative and comprehensive dataset. Stratification will be based on cultural dimensions such as individualism-collectivism, power distance, and masculinity-femininity to ensure adequate representation of diverse cultural groups. This approach aligns with recommendations by scholars advocating for cultural inclusivity in research to enhance the external validity of findings (Smith, 2004; Gelfand et al., 2011).

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection will involve a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to capture the richness and complexity of cross-cultural experiences with bullying. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted to gather in-depth narratives, allowing participants to share their unique perspectives on bullying within their cultural context. Additionally, standardized surveys, such as the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) and the Cultural Competence Assessment Tool (Betancourt et al., 2003), will be administered to quantify the prevalence and cultural variations in bullying experiences. The use of multiple methods will provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon while also allowing for triangulation of data, enhancing the reliability and validity of the study (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

Participants

Demographic Information

The study will include participants from various cultural backgrounds, ensuring representation from both individualistic and collectivist societies, as well as those with varying power distance orientations. Demographic information will be collected to characterize the sample based on variables such as age, gender, cultural background, socioeconomic status, and educational level. This detailed demographic profiling will enable a nuanced analysis of how these factors intersect with bullying experiences, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the cultural dynamics at play.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria will encompass individuals aged 18 and above who belong to diverse cultural groups. Exclusion criteria will exclude individuals with a history of mental health disorders, as this could potentially impact their perceptions and experiences of bullying. Additionally, participants will be excluded if they have not resided in their current cultural context for at least five years to ensure a sufficient level of acculturation and familiarity with the cultural nuances relevant to the study.

Measures

Assessment Tools for Bullying

To assess bullying experiences, the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire (Olweus, 1996) will be utilized. This widely validated instrument provides a comprehensive understanding of bullying dynamics, covering aspects of verbal, physical, and relational aggression. The questionnaire will be translated into multiple languages to ensure linguistic and cultural appropriateness for diverse participants. Additionally, qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews, allowing participants to share their personal narratives and providing context to the quantitative findings.

Cultural Sensitivity in Measurement

Cultural sensitivity will be prioritized throughout the study. The Cultural Competence Assessment Tool (Betancourt et al., 2003) will be employed to ensure that the research instruments are culturally appropriate and do not inadvertently perpetuate cultural biases. Translation and back-translation procedures will be undertaken for all survey instruments, and pilot testing will be conducted with participants from each cultural group to identify and address any potential cultural misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

Data Analysis

Statistical Methods Employed

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software (e.g., SPSS). Descriptive statistics will be employed to characterize the prevalence and nature of bullying experiences within each cultural group. Comparative analyses, such as ANOVA and t-tests, will be conducted to identify significant differences between cultural groups. Additionally, thematic analysis will be applied to qualitative data obtained from interviews, allowing for the identification of recurring themes and patterns within participants’ narratives.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations will be paramount throughout the research process. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants, outlining the purpose of the study, potential risks, and the voluntary nature of participation. Confidentiality and anonymity will be strictly maintained, with participants being assigned unique identifiers rather than disclosing personal information. The study will adhere to the ethical guidelines outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and will seek approval from the institutional review board (IRB) to ensure the protection of participants’ rights and well-being. Additionally, cultural sensitivity training will be provided to research team members to minimize the potential for cultural insensitivity during data collection and analysis. Any identified distress in participants will be addressed promptly, and appropriate referrals to mental health professionals will be provided if necessary. The research will be conducted with the utmost respect for participants’ cultural backgrounds and individual experiences, recognizing the potential impact of discussing sensitive topics such as bullying.

Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Bullying

Cultural Variations in Definitions of Bullying

Eastern vs. Western Perspectives

Cultural variations significantly influence how bullying is defined and perceived. In Western societies, bullying is often framed within an individualistic context, emphasizing personal rights and autonomy. Eastern cultures, on the other hand, often prioritize collective harmony over individual expression, impacting the reporting and interpretation of bullying incidents (Gini et al., 2008). For instance, in a study by Kim and Park (2017), Korean adolescents reported higher levels of bullying victimization when using a culturally adapted questionnaire that considered subtle forms of relational aggression, highlighting the importance of culturally sensitive definitions to capture the nuances of bullying experiences.

Indigenous Cultural Perspectives

Indigenous cultures bring unique perspectives to the discourse on bullying. These perspectives often intertwine with cultural traditions, community values, and historical contexts. For instance, in some Indigenous communities, bullying may be understood in the context of colonization, historical trauma, and the impact of acculturation on cultural identity (Lefthand et al., 2016). Recognizing and respecting these indigenous perspectives is crucial for developing interventions that address the root causes of bullying within these communities.

Cultural Factors Influencing Bullying Behavior

Individualism vs. Collectivism

The cultural dimension of individualism-collectivism significantly shapes the manifestation and response to bullying behaviors. Individualistic cultures, such as those in Western societies, may prioritize personal rights and assertiveness, leading to a higher likelihood of reporting bullying incidents (Gini et al., 2008). In collectivist cultures, maintaining group harmony often takes precedence over individual grievances, potentially resulting in underreporting of bullying cases to preserve social cohesion (Kim et al., 2011). Understanding these cultural nuances is vital for tailoring interventions that resonate with the cultural values prevalent in different societies.

Power Distance and Bullying Dynamics

Power distance, another cultural dimension, influences the dynamics of bullying within a society. Societies with higher power distance, where hierarchical structures are accepted and respected, may experience different forms of bullying dynamics compared to those with lower power distance (Hofstede, 1980). For instance, bullying may manifest as vertical aggression, where individuals in higher positions exploit those in subordinate roles. Recognizing the impact of power distance on bullying dynamics is crucial for developing interventions that address not only individual behaviors but also the systemic power imbalances that contribute to bullying.

Impact of Cultural Values on Coping Mechanisms

Cultural Norms Around Conflict Resolution

Cultural values shape how individuals cope with the impact of bullying. In cultures that emphasize individual assertiveness, confrontation may be a more acceptable and common coping strategy (Smith et al., 2002). In contrast, collectivist cultures may prioritize indirect conflict resolution and mediation to maintain group harmony (Gudykunst & Nishida, 2001). Understanding these cultural norms around conflict resolution informs the development of coping mechanisms that align with cultural values, enhancing the effectiveness of interventions.

Role of Family and Community Support

The influence of family and community support on coping mechanisms cannot be overstated. In collectivist cultures, where the family unit holds paramount importance, familial support serves as a crucial buffer against the negative effects of bullying (Espelage et al., 2013). Community networks also play a significant role, providing additional layers of support and intervention. Case studies from cultures that prioritize communal well-being, such as some Indigenous communities, underscore the importance of integrating family and community-based strategies into anti-bullying interventions to create a more holistic and culturally relevant approach (Lefthand et al., 2016).

Case Studies from Diverse Cultural Contexts

Case studies provide valuable insights into the nuanced dynamics of bullying within specific cultural contexts. For example, in Japan, a collectivist society, bullying dynamics have been documented within the framework of “ijime,” which encompasses both physical and psychological harassment (Ishikawa et al., 2017). In contrast, Nordic countries, often characterized by low power distance and strong social support systems, have implemented successful anti-bullying programs like the KiVa program in Finland, emphasizing the role of peer support and intervention (Salmivalli et al., 2011).

Furthermore, the experiences of Indigenous communities offer unique insights. In the context of some Native American tribes, bullying may be intertwined with historical trauma, acculturation challenges, and the erosion of cultural identity (Lefthand et al., 2016). These case studies highlight the need for interventions that consider the specific cultural, historical, and contextual factors at play within each community. By examining these diverse case studies, the research aims to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of how cultural variations shape the manifestation, tolerance, and response to bullying, informing culturally sensitive intervention strategies to address this global concern.

Implications for Intervention

Challenges in Implementing Universal Anti-Bullying Programs

While universal anti-bullying programs have demonstrated efficacy in some contexts, the implementation of such programs across diverse cultural settings is not without challenges. One key challenge lies in the assumption that a one-size-fits-all approach can effectively address the multifaceted nature of bullying. Cultural variations in the definition of bullying, coping mechanisms, and power dynamics necessitate a nuanced understanding to tailor interventions appropriately (Smith et al., 2002). Additionally, the cultural appropriateness of intervention materials and strategies may be compromised when not aligned with the cultural values and norms of the target population (Espelage et al., 2013). Therefore, it is essential to critically assess the cultural relevance of existing universal programs before their implementation in diverse cultural contexts.

Tailoring Interventions to Specific Cultural Contexts

School-Based Programs

Schools play a central role in addressing bullying, making them key settings for intervention programs. However, the effectiveness of interventions hinges on their cultural appropriateness and responsiveness to the unique dynamics of each school environment. Culturally tailored school-based programs should involve collaboration with educators, parents, and community leaders to gain insights into the specific cultural nuances at play. For instance, in a collectivist culture, emphasizing peer support and group dynamics within anti-bullying initiatives may be more effective than focusing solely on individual behaviors (Gini et al., 2008). Adapting intervention strategies to align with cultural norms and values ensures greater resonance within the school community, fostering a more inclusive and effective approach to tackle bullying.

Community-Based Initiatives

Beyond the school environment, community-based initiatives are crucial for addressing bullying comprehensively. Culturally tailored community programs provide an opportunity to engage not only with schools but also with families, local organizations, and community leaders. These initiatives should recognize and leverage existing cultural assets and support structures within the community (Espelage et al., 2013). For example, in collectivist societies, involving extended family networks and community elders in anti-bullying efforts can enhance the overall impact. Community-based initiatives also offer a platform to address systemic issues, such as power imbalances and historical trauma, which may contribute to the perpetuation of bullying within certain cultural contexts (Lefthand et al., 2016). By integrating community perspectives and resources, interventions become more culturally responsive and sustainable.

Importance of Cultural Competence in Mental Health Professionals

Cultural competence among mental health professionals is paramount for the success of anti-bullying interventions. Professionals working in schools, clinics, and community settings must possess an understanding of diverse cultural norms, communication styles, and help-seeking behaviors (Betancourt et al., 2003). Cultural competence involves not only awareness of cultural differences but also the ability to adapt interventions to meet the unique needs of individuals from diverse backgrounds (Lynch & Hanson, 2004). For example, recognizing the stigma associated with seeking mental health support in certain cultures, interventions may need to incorporate culturally sensitive outreach strategies and engage community leaders to reduce barriers to access (Lefthand et al., 2016).

Training programs for mental health professionals should prioritize cultural competence, incorporating education on cultural humility, intersectionality, and the impact of cultural factors on mental health outcomes. This ensures that professionals are equipped to navigate the complexities of cultural diversity in their practice, fostering a more inclusive and effective approach to addressing bullying and its associated mental health consequences (Betancourt et al., 2003).

Future Directions for Research and Intervention

As we move forward, several avenues for future research and intervention emerge. Firstly, a deeper exploration of the intersectionality of cultural factors is essential. Understanding how variables such as gender, socioeconomic status, and acculturation intersect with cultural dimensions in shaping bullying dynamics can inform more targeted and nuanced interventions (Smith et al., 2002).

Additionally, longitudinal studies that track the long-term impact of culturally tailored interventions are needed. Evaluating the sustained effectiveness of interventions across diverse cultural settings provides valuable insights into their lasting impact and informs potential adaptations over time (Ttofi et al., 2011).

Furthermore, collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners is essential to bridge the gap between research findings and practical implementation. This collaborative approach ensures that interventions are not only grounded in evidence but also responsive to the evolving needs of diverse communities. Community-based participatory research, involving stakeholders in the research process, can enhance the relevance and sustainability of interventions (Israel et al., 2008).

Interventions should also embrace technological advancements, considering the role of online platforms in shaping bullying experiences. Cyberbullying, influenced by both cultural and technological factors, requires targeted interventions that acknowledge the unique challenges posed by digital spaces (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).

In conclusion, the implications for intervention underscore the importance of moving beyond universal approaches and embracing culturally sensitive and tailored strategies. By recognizing and respecting cultural variations in definitions, factors influencing behavior, and coping mechanisms, interventions can foster more inclusive, effective, and sustainable outcomes in the global effort to combat bullying and promote mental well-being. Through ongoing research and collaboration, we can refine and expand our understanding of how cultural perspectives shape the complex landscape of bullying, paving the way for more impactful interventions in the future.

Conclusion

This research journey into Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Bullying has unveiled a rich tapestry of insights, emphasizing the importance of cultural nuances in understanding, addressing, and preventing bullying. Through an extensive exploration of historical contexts, theoretical frameworks, and empirical studies, this research has illuminated the cultural variations in the definition, prevalence, and coping mechanisms related to bullying. Key findings highlight the intricate interplay between cultural dimensions, such as individualism-collectivism and power distance, and the manifestation of bullying behaviors. Moreover, case studies from diverse cultural contexts have provided valuable narratives, shedding light on the unique challenges and strengths that different communities bring to the discourse on bullying.

The contributions of this research extend beyond the theoretical realm, providing practical insights for interventionists, policymakers, and mental health professionals. By synthesizing existing knowledge, this research has underscored the limitations of universal anti-bullying programs and championed the need for culturally sensitive approaches. The exploration of school-based and community-based interventions has emphasized the importance of tailoring strategies to specific cultural contexts. Furthermore, the spotlight on the significance of cultural competence in mental health professionals recognizes the pivotal role of practitioners in creating culturally responsive and effective interventions. The examination of case studies from diverse cultural contexts has contributed to the growing body of literature, adding depth and context to the understanding of bullying on a global scale.

While this research offers valuable insights, it is not without limitations. The use of a stratified random sampling method, while aiming for diversity, may not capture the full spectrum of cultural perspectives. The reliance on self-report measures introduces the possibility of social desirability bias and may not fully capture the intricacies of bullying experiences. Additionally, the focus on specific cultural dimensions may oversimplify the complex interplay of cultural factors influencing bullying. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of culture and the potential for cultural shifts over time pose challenges in maintaining the relevance of findings. Despite these limitations, this research provides a foundation for future exploration into the complex intersectionality of cultural factors and bullying dynamics.

Building on the insights gained from this study, several recommendations for future research emerge. Firstly, investigations into the intersectionality of cultural factors, such as gender, socioeconomic status, and acculturation, can provide a more nuanced understanding of the complexities surrounding bullying. Longitudinal studies tracking the sustained effectiveness of culturally tailored interventions are essential to assess the long-term impact and adaptability of these programs over time. Exploring the role of technology in shaping bullying experiences, particularly in the context of cyberbullying, warrants further investigation to inform interventions in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Moreover, future research should prioritize collaborative approaches involving researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community members. Community-based participatory research can enhance the relevance and applicability of interventions by incorporating the voices and perspectives of those directly affected by bullying.

In conclusion, this research marks a significant step towards unraveling the intricate relationship between culture and bullying. The findings and recommendations set the stage for a more culturally responsive approach to intervention, acknowledging the diversity of human experiences and the need for context-specific strategies. As we continue to delve into this complex terrain, guided by the lessons learned from this study, the global effort to combat bullying and promote mental well-being can benefit from an increasingly informed and culturally sensitive approach.

Bibliography

1. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Prentice-Hall.
2. Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Ananeh-Firempong, O. (2003). Defining Cultural Competence: A Practical Framework for Addressing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care. Public Health Reports, 118(4), 293–302.
3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
4. Craig, W., & Pepler, D. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 48(2), 86–93.
5. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
6. Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2013). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 42(2), 165–180.
7. Gelfand, M. J., Raver, J. L., Nishii, L., Leslie, L. M., Lun, J., Lim, B. C., … & Yamaguchi, S. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100-1104.
8. Gini, G., Albiero, P., Benelli, B., & Altoè, G. (2008). Determinants of adolescents’ active defending and passive bystanding behavior in bullying. Journal of Adolescence, 31(1), 93–105.
9. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.
10. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Sage Publications.
11. Ishikawa, H., Tachikawa, H., & Koyama, S. (2017). Bullying in Japan: A review of research on bullying from 1990 to 2016. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 33, 23–28.
12. Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.
13. Kim, Y. S., & Park, J. H. (2017). Bullying experiences and depressive symptoms among Korean middle school students: The mediating effects of body image disturbance, life satisfaction and resilience. School Psychology International, 38(6), 622–640.
14. Kim, Y. S., Koh, Y. J., & Leventhal, B. L. (2005). School bullying and suicidal risk in Korean middle school students. Pediatrics, 115(2), 357–363.
15. Lefthand, M. J., Shangreau, C., & Brown, J. (2016). Understanding bullying among Native American youth: A look at the cultural-historical context and community efforts to inform research, policy, and practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(6), 773–790.
16. Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (2004). Developing Cross-Cultural Competence. Brookes Publishing.
17. Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. Pepler & K. Rubin (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression (pp. 411–448). Erlbaum.
18. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Blackwell.
19. Olweus, D. (1996). The Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire. Mimeo, Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL), University of Bergen, Norway.
20. Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior, 22(1), 1–15.
21. Salmivalli, C., Poskiparta, E., Ahtola, A., & Haataja, A. (2013). The implementation and effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program in Finland. European Psychologist, 18(2), 79–88.
22. Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying: Recent Developments. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 9(3), 98–103.
23. Smith, P. K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R., & Slee, P. (2002). The nature of school bullying: A cross-national perspective. Routledge.
24. 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.