Bullying in different nations

Research: School bullying has haunted nearly all contexts and gained rising scholarly attention during the past decades. The prevalence of bullying has been examined globally.

A recent international study revealed that in all surveyed 40 countries, 10.7% of participating adolescents have acted as bullies, 12.6% as victims, and 3.6% combined bully/victims during a 2 month periode (Craig et al., 2009). In an empirical study conducted in Greece, 26.4% of the 5,614 participating students have experienced bullying at least once every month, and 4.1% involved in weekly bullying (Magklara et al., 2012). A higher prevalence was found in another study, where almost half of the participants were bullying involvers. What’s more, students in secondary schools were more likely to experience bullying than younger students (Psalti, 2012). In North Ireland, according to a 2003 survey involving 7223 teenagers, almost one-fifth of the respondents self-reported being victims, and nearly one tenth acted as bullies on campus. These bullying behaviors most frequently took place during school meals and sporting activities (McGuckin et al., 2009).

Researchers have also examined bullying prevalence among ethnic groups. In Sweden, students of foreign backgrounds were proved to have greater possibility to be bullies or victims or both; 25.2% students reported bullying involvement in the study (Carlerby et al., 2013). Finnish scholars surveyed 364 internationally adopted children, found that 8% of the participants had bullied others while 19.8% were bullied (Raaska et al., 2012). However, a study conducted in Holland suggested that ethnicity did not necessarily link to higher bullying involvement. Even though pupils of Turkish and Moroccan origins bullied more than native Dutch students, the odds of victimization did not correlate to ethnic background (Tolsma et al., 2013).

In America, 50% of the respondents in a 1229-student-survey experienced bullying at least once on campus. Half of the victims would fight back while one fifth would do nothing. A majority of bystanders would try to stop the bullying while 16% would do nothing and another 20% would join in. Even though most students perceived bullying negatively, 42% of them had bullied others at school (Brown et al., 2005). Data from a more recent national survey revealed that 13% of participants were bullies, 15% were victims, and another 13% were bully/victims (Lovegrove et al., 2012). The prevalence among disabled students was even higher, with 24.5% prevalence rate in elementary school and 34.1% in middle school, exceeding those for normal students (Blake et al., 2012).

Based on a nationally representative data involving 25,000 adolescents in 15 Latin American and Caribbean countries, researchers indicated that the victim population took up 17% to 39% of the sampling students. Girls were more likely to involve in appearance-based bullying, while boys were commonly engaged in physical aggression (McClanahan et al., 2015). In Brazil, 7.6% of the 2355 sampling students acted as bullies, 5.7% as victims, and 9.6% as bully/victims. What’s more, nearly one fourth (22.9%) of the sample reported frequent bullying involvement (Isolan et al., 2013).

Chinese researchers, using a 8,342-student survey, showed that more than one fifth (20.83%) of students were involved in bullying, with 8.6% bullies, 18.99% victims, and 6.74% bully/victims (Wang et al., 2012). A recent survey investigation conducted in Taiwan showed that the self-reported prevalence rates of bullies, victims, and bully/victims were 10.9%, 10.7% and 5.5% respectively, while the bystanders took up 29.9% of the participants (Chen & Cheng, 2013).

Different kinds of bullying

Besides investigating the prevalence of bullying, much ink has been spilled over the forms of bullying behaviors among adolescents. Among the traditional bullying forms, researchers found that verbal bullying was the most popular victimization, followed by group rejection (Khamis, 2015). The popularity of verbal bullying was shared by Greek and Spanish secondary school students as well. Examining the bullying involvement among 1500 Spanish students, researchers found that verbal abuse was the most commonly used abusive behavior (Fernández et al., 2013). Additionally, Greek students also frequently experienced social exclusion and sexual harassment on campus (Bibou-Nakou et al., 2014). Among Australian adolescents, the most frequent bullying and victimization forms were verbal, indirect and physical, even though other extreme bullying forms were low in the context (Owens et al., 2014). Notably, boys were found to be more frequently involved in almost all types of bullying than girls (Habashy Hussein, 2013; Robson & Witenberg, 2013; Wang et al., 2012) except for gossiping (Fernández et al., 2013).

The rising use of mobile phones and internet has provided avenues of new bullying forms. Two online survey data showed that the prevalence rate of being bullied in person among 2400 6-17-year-old was 25%, while 10% of them were bullied online, 7% through landline, and another 8% via texting (Ybarra et al., 2012). Researchers compared the differences between the two bullying forms, getting that the roles of students in traditional bullying predict their roles in electronic bullying (Raskauskas & Stoltz, 2007). Technology accessing could be protective to victims under certain circumstances. For example, non heterosexual university students were at higher risk of being bullied in traditional bullying, however they experienced similar bullying levels as their heterosexual counterparts (Wensley & Campbell, 2012).

Cyberbullying as a new bullying form has been widely studied in recent years. Taiwan researchers analyzed the relationship between school bullying and cyberbullying, getting that those cyberbullying involvers were more likely to be bullies or victims in school bullying as well. And the odds of cyberbullying involvement would increase with students’ internet risk behaviors (Chang et al., 2013). American researchers also illustrated that cyber bullies could be categorized to the aggressive adolescent group, who are prone to bully others in various forms (Wang et al., 2012). In the Jerusalem Hebrew and Arab educational system, researchers found that the prevalence rate of traditionally bullying was much higher than that of cyberbyllying (28% versus 8.9% as bullies, and 44.9% versus 14.4% as victims) (Gofin & Avitzour, 2012). What’s more, both cyberbullying and school bullying associated with mental depression. Victims of both forms held negative view towards school, and suffered severe psychic problems. More specifically, traditional victims reported helplessness and internet victims reported loneliness (Gofin & Avitzour, 2012). Researchers also indicated that cyber victims were at highest risk of depression than other cyber bullying involvers (Wang et al., 2011).

The understanding of bullying as a phenomenon

Much attention has been paid to examine the social-emotional characters of bullying involvers. Researchers found that in Greece, bullying and victimization in both genders associated with lack of faith in human nature, manipulation, dishonesty and distrust, Machiavellianism and self-efficacy measures (Andreou, 2004). Swiss researchers claimed that bully/victims appeared to be less cooperative and sociable; they were also more likely to have fewer playmates than their classmates (Perren & Alsaker, 2006).

A list of bullying predictors has been demonstrated. Hong Kong researchers indicated that gains of security, power, material benefits, fun and emotional release all contributed to the initiation of the bullies (Lam & Liu, 2007). Japanese scholars suggested that the irregular sleep pattern and nocturnal cell phone use added to the odds of bullying involvement of adolescents (Tochigi et al., 2012). Macanese students’ registration in boarding schools, as well as their living arrangement, was found to be significantly associated with their risky behaviors (Chui & Chan, 2014). In Turkey, the likelihood of being bullies increased with higher locus of control, less supervision, growing age, and the male gender, while being a victim was influenced by loneliness and lower acceptance (Atik & Güneri, 2013). In North America, bullying increased with perceived discrimination (Melander et al., 2013). A comparative study conducted in the US and Australia displayed the correlation of campus violence with early alcohol use and antisocial peer involvement (Herrenkohl et al., 2012). South Korean scholars stressed the influence of individual traits in school bullying and revealed that parental involvement would affect students’ bullying through influencing school climate (Lee & Song, 2012). A review on parenting behavior and bullying involvement also disclosed the association between negative parenting style and the likelihood of being victims and bully/victims (Lereya et al., 2013). Surveying 187 adolescents in Portugal, researchers found that student endorsements of personal just world predicted the non-engagement in bullying (Correia & Dalbert, 2008). Scottish scholars found that quality of school life and school stress were most significant variables predicting bullying involvement (Karatzias et al., 2002). Similar findings were obtained in Malta as well, where school bullying involvement not only correlated to students’ mental health, but also school environments (Askell-Williams et al., 2013).

Bullying for sure brings considerable negative outcomes for the involvers. Data collected from 7 countries in an international study indicated that bullying brought severe social and emotional consequences to victims (Eslea et al., 2003).Northern England students with multiple roles (victim, bully and bystander) suffered most heavily psychological distress and were inclined to commit suicide (Rivers & Noret, 2010). Researchers further indicated in a more recent study that both adolescent bullies and victims appeared to have subsequent suicidal thoughts (Heikkilä et al., 2013). They also were at high risk of depression (Liu et al., 2011). Greek scholars found that psychiatric morbidity correlated to all bullying behaviors (Magklara, et al., 2012). Turkish researchers found that involvers had more negative perceptions towards schools, teachers, and their peers both on campus and cyberspace (Bayar & Uçanok, 2012),and it is not surprising that victims were proved to have lower academic motivation as well as educational performance (Young-Jones et al., 2014).

Among those involved in bullying, the bully-victims constitute the most distinct group. Using the survey covering 24,345 students from 105 schools of various levels and types in America, it is found that bully-victims tended to display internalizing symptoms, encounter peer problems, and hold negative perceptions of school climate (O'Brennan et al., 2009). They were also most likely to feel unsafe and be disconnected from school (Bradshaw et al., 2008). Israeli researchers revealed that bully-victims felt lowest security and teacher support (Berkowitz & Benbenishty, 2012). Using meta-analysis covering 1,622 studies since 1970, American researchers summarized that bully victims were those who have comorbid externalizing and internalizing problems, viewing their surroundings and themselves negatively, and performing poorly in social life as well as in the academic sphere. They were also isolated and negatively influenced by peers (Cook et al., 2010).

Anti-bullying work in different nations

Given the negative outcomes for those involved in bullying, bullying intervention and prevention has become an urgent concern in current bullying research. It has been agreed that counter-bullying is a multiple-stage and multiple-involver collaborative work. Cyprus researchers suggested the significance of constructing excellent classroom learning environment and positive school evaluation to reduce bullying (Kyriakides & Creemers, 2012). Therapeutic treatment was also proposed to be included in an effective anti-bullying project together with family involvement and school intervention (Hilton et al., 2010). Parental participation has been further stressed because parents’ historical bullying involvement was found to influence their concern, views, and also strategies during bullying encountering and addressing (Cooper & Nickerson, 2013). In terms of time of intervention, researchers suggested that it is critical to intervene at an early stage, before the end of primary school, based on the longitudinal investigation on bully-victim pathways of the pupils in Australia (Lester et al., 2012).

Teachers’ perceptions towards bullying have been analyzed as well. Teachers reflected that having serious conversation with bullies was most commonly used as an intervention strategy (Duy, 2013). Another work, however, suggested the most helpful addressing strategies would be inviting parental involvement, and notifying students on the bullying consequences (Stauffer et al., 2012). American scholars investigated teachers’ expectations and self-efficacy for working with bullying, finding that the perceived principal support significantly affected teachers’ beliefs in their work (Skinner et al., 2014). Additionally, the school commitment to bullying prevention was found to associate with less bullying, suggesting increased administrative assistance in bullying addressing (Espelage, Polanin, & Low, 2014).

Numerous anti-bullying programs have emerged. In America, the Bullying and Harassment Prevention in Positive Behavior Support: Expect Respect intervention program was implemented in middle schools to prepare students with a 31-hour lesson over 6 months to stop bullying and ask for social support when encountering or witnessing bullying. Consequently, verbal and physical aggression in canteens were observed to decrease in all surveyed schools (Nese et al., 2014). A similar program entitled Student Success through Prevention Middle School Program was also found to have substantial intervention effect (Espelage et al., 2013). The KiVa program in Finland has been found to reduce bullying and victimization, as well as the accompanied anxiety and depression among students (Salmivalli et al., 2013). The PATHS Program (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs) in Hong Kong was designed to strengthen the intra-psychic qualities of students, so that they could act as constructive bystanders during bullying (Tsang et al., 2011). However the effect of the intervention has yet to be agreed.

American researchers argued that the zero-tolerance policies following the punitive approach have been harmful and stigmatizing, being ineffective in reducing bullying despite the increase of anti-bullying legislation (Borgwald & Theixos, 2013). Meta analysis conclusions revealed the limited success of the whole-school intervention (Richard et al., 2012). It is found that even though victims frequently seek social support and externalizing, these strategies failed to solve their problems during bullying (Tenenbaum et al., 2011).

 Additionally, the characters and consequences of bullying has not yet been fully recognized and understood, bringing substantial inefficiency in practical bullying intervention and prevention. For example, educators in South Africa regarded bullying as an individual problem and sought for resolution merely between bullies and victims (de Wet & Jacobs, 2013). Principals in American elementary schools, although they noticed the prevalence of bullying among students especially those with disabilities, turned to see bullying as just a minor problem on campus (Flynt & Morton, 2008). More and worse, in Italy, the perceived teacher unfairness was found to be associated with students’ bullying involvement (Santinello et al., 2011). These inefficiencies call for deeper exploration in bullying investigation and closer alignment and communication between bullying researchers and school-administrators/teachers/counselors.

Text: Dian Liu


Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and self‐efficacy in Greek primary school children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 297-309.

Askell-Williams, H., Cefai, C., & Fabri, F. (2013). Maltese Students' Perspectives About Their Experiences at School and Their Mental Health. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 23(02), 252-270.

Atik, G., & Güneri, O. Y. (2013). Bullying and victimization: Predictive role of individual, parental, and academic factors. School Psychology International, 34(6), 658-673.

Bayar, Y., & Uçanok, Z. (2012). School Social Climate and Generalized Peer Perception in Traditional and Cyberbullying Status. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2352-2358.

Berkowitz, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2012). Perceptions of teachers’ support, safety, and absence from school because of fear among victims, bullies, and bully‐victims. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 67-74.

Bibou-Nakou, I., Asimopoulos, C., Hatzipemou, T., Soumaki, E., & Tsiantis, J. (2014). Bullying in Greek secondary schools: Prevalence and profile of bullying practices. International Journal of Mental Health Promotion, 16(1), 3-18.

Blake, J. J., Lund, E. M., Zhou, Q., Kwok, O.-m., & Benz, M. R. (2012). National prevalence rates of bully victimization among students with disabilities in the United States. School Psychology Quarterly, 27(4), 210-222.

Borgwald, K., & Theixos, H. (2013). Bullying the bully: Why zero-tolerance policies get a failing grade. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 149-160.

Bradshaw, C. P., O'Brennan, L. M., & Sawyer, A. L. (2008). Examining variation in attitudes toward aggressive retaliation and perceptions of safety among bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Professional School Counseling, 12(1), 10-21.

Brown, S. L., Birch, D. A., & Kancherla, V. (2005). Bullying Perspectives: Experiences, Attitudes, and Recommendations of 9‐to 13‐Year‐Olds Attending Health Education Centers in the United States. Journal of School Health, 75(10), 384-392.

Carlerby, H., Viitasara, E., Knutsson, A., & Gådin, K. G. (2013). How bullying involvement is associated with the distribution of parental background and with subjective health complaints among Swedish boys and girls. Social indicators research, 111(3), 775-783.

Carrera Fernández, M. V., Fernández, M. L., Castro, Y. R., Failde Garrido, J. M., & Otero, M. C. (2013). Bullying in Spanish secondary schools: Gender-based differences. The Spanish journal of psychology, 16.

Chang, F. C., Lee, C. M., Chiu, C. H., Hsi, W. Y., Huang, T. F., & Pan, Y. C. (2013). Relationships among cyberbullying, school bullying, and mental health in Taiwanese adolescents. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 454-462.

Chen, L., & Cheng, Y. (2013). Prevalence of school bullying among secondary students in Taiwan: Measurements with and without a specific definition of bullying. School Psychology International, 34(6), 707-720.

Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2014). Self-control, school bullying perpetration, and victimization among Macanese adolescents. Journal of child and family studies, 1-11.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65-83.

Cooper, L. A., & Nickerson, A. B. (2013). Parent retrospective recollections of bullying and current views, concerns, and strategies to cope with children’s bullying. Journal of child and family studies, 22(4), 526-540.

Correia, I., & Dalbert, C. (2008). School bullying: Belief in a personal just world of bullies, victims, and defenders. European Psychologist, 13(4), 248-254.

Craig, W., Harel-Fisch, Y., Fogel-Grinvald, H., Dostaler, S., Hetland, J., Simons-Morton, B., . . . Due, P. (2009). A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. International Journal of Public Health, 54(2), 216-224.

de Wet, C., & Jacobs, L. (2013). South African Educators' Understanding of Bullying. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(2), 339-343.


Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., O'Moore, M., Mora‐Merchán, J. A., Pereira, B., & Smith, P. K. (2003). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: Data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30(1), 71-83.

Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(2), 180-186.

Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Low, S. K. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 287-305.

Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2008). Alabama elementary principals' perceptions of bullying. Education, 129(2), 187-191.

Gofin, R., & Avitzour, M. (2012). Traditional versus internet bullying in junior high school students. Maternal and child health journal, 16(8), 1625-1635.

Habashy Hussein, M. (2013). The social and emotional skills of bullies, victims, and bully–victims of Egyptian primary school children. International journal of psychology, 48(5), 910-921.

Heikkilä, H.-K., Väänänen, J., Helminen, M., Fröjd, S., Marttunen, M., & Kaltiala-Heino, R. (2013). Involvement in bullying and suicidal ideation in middle adolescence: a 2-year follow-up study. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 22(2), 95-102.

Herrenkohl, T. I., Hemphill, S. A., Mason, W. A., Toumbourou, J. W., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Predictors and responses to the growth in physical violence during adolescence: A comparison of students in Washington State and Victoria, Australia. American journal of orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 41-49.

Hilton, J. M., Anngela-Cole, L., & Wakita, J. (2010). A cross-cultural comparison of factors associated with school bullying in Japan and the United States. The Family Journal, 18(4), 413-422.

Isolan, L., Salum, G. A., Osowski, A. T., Zottis, G. H., & Manfro, G. G. (2013). Victims and bully-victims but not bullies are groups associated with anxiety symptomatology among Brazilian children and adolescents. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 22(10), 641-648.

Karatzias, A., Power, K. G., & Swanson, V. (2002). Bullying and victimisation in Scottish secondary schools: Same or separate entities? Aggressive Behavior, 28(1), 45-61.

Khamis, V. (2015). Bullying among school-age children in the greater Beirut area: risk and protective factors. Child abuse & neglect, 39, 137-146.

Kyriakides, L., & Creemers, B. P. M. (2012). Characteristics of effective schools in facing and reducing bullying. School Psychology International, 34(3), 348-368.

Lam, D. O., & Liu, A. W. (2007). The path through bullying—a process model from the inside story of bullies in Hong Kong secondary schools. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24(1), 53-75.

Lee, C.-H., & Song, J. (2012). Functions of parental involvement and effects of school climate on bullying behaviors among South Korean middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(12), 2437-2464.

Lereya, S. T., Samara, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Parenting behavior and the risk of becoming a victim and a bully/victim: A meta-analysis study. Child abuse & neglect, 37(12), 1091-1108.

Lester, L., Cross, D., Shaw, T., & Dooley, J. (2012). Adolescent bully-victims: Social health and the transition to secondary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2), 213-233.

Liu, X., Lu, D., Zhou, L., & Su, L. (2013). Relationship between bullying, victimization and depression, suicidal ideation. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21(1), 85-87.

Lovegrove, P. J., Henry, K. L., & Slater, M. D. (2012). Examination of the predictors of latent class typologies of bullying involvement among middle school students. Journal of school violence, 11(1), 75-93.

Magklara, K., Skapinakis, P., Gkatsa, T., Bellos, S., Araya, R., Stylianidis, S., & Mavreas, V. (2012). Bullying behaviour in schools, socioeconomic position and psychiatric morbidity: a cross-sectional study in late adolescents in Greece. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 6(8), 02-13.

McClanahan, M., McCoy, S. M., & Jacobsen, K. H. (2015). Forms of bullying reported by middle-school students in Latin America and the Caribbean. Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 8(1), 42-54.

McGuckin, C., Cummins, P., & Lewis, C. A. (2009). Bully/victim problems in Northern Ireland’s schools: Data from the 2003 Young Persons’ Behaviour and Attitude Survey. Adolescence, 44(174), 347-358.

Melander, L. A., Hartshorn, K. J. S., & Whitbeck, L. B. (2013). Correlates of bullying behaviors among a sample of North American Indigenous adolescents. Journal of adolescence, 36(4), 675-684.

Nese, R. N., Horner, R. H., Dickey, C. R., Stiller, B., & Tomlanovich, A. (2014). Decreasing bullying behaviors in middle school: Expect Respect. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(3), 272-286.

O'Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining developmental differences in the social‐emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools, 46(2), 100-115.

Owens, L., Skrzypiec, G., & Wadham, B. (2014). Thinking patterns, victimisation and bullying among adolescents in a South Australian metropolitan secondary school. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 19(2), 190-202.

Perren, S., & Alsaker, F. D. (2006). Social behavior and peer relationships of victims, bully‐victims, and bullies in kindergarten. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 47(1), 45-57.

Psalti, A. (2012). Bullies, victims, and bully-victims in Greek schools: research data and implications for practice. Hellenic journal of Psychology, 9, 132-157.

Raaska, H., Lapinleimu, H., Sinkkonen, J., Salmivalli, C., Matomäki, J., Mäkipää, S., & Elovainio, M. (2012). Experiences of school bullying among internationally adopted children: Results from the Finnish Adoption (FINADO) Study. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43(4), 592-611.

Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564-575.

Richard, J. F., Schneider, B. H., & Mallet, P. (2012). Revisiting the whole-school approach to bullying: Really looking at the whole school. School Psychology International, 33(3), 263-284.

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2010). Participant roles in bullying behavior and their association with thoughts of ending one’s life. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 31(3), 143-148.

Robson, C., & Witenberg, R. T. (2013). The influence of moral disengagement, morally based self-esteem, age, and gender on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of school violence, 12(2), 211-231.

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.

Santinello, M., Vieno, A., & De Vogli, R. (2011). Bullying in Italian schools: the role of perceived teacher unfairness. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26(2), 235-246.

Shin, J. Y., D’Antonio, E., Son, H., Kim, S.-A., & Park, Y. (2011). Bullying and discrimination experiences among Korean-American adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34(5), 873-883.

Skinner, A. T., Babinski, L. M., & Gifford, E. J. (2014). Teachers' expectations and self-efficacy for working with bullies and victims. Psychology in the Schools, 51(1), 72-84.

Stauffer, S., Heath, M. A., Coyne, S. M., & Ferrin, S. (2012). High school teachers' perceptions of cyberbullying prevention and intervention strategies. Psychology in the Schools, 49(4), 352-367.

Tenenbaum, L. S., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Parris, L. (2011). Coping strategies and perceived effectiveness in fourth through eighth grade victims of bullying. School Psychology International, 32(3), 263-287.

Tochigi, M., Nishida, A., Shimodera, S., Oshima, N., Inoue, K., Okazaki, Y., & Sasaki, T. (2012). Irregular bedtime and nocturnal cellular phone usage as risk factors for being involved in bullying: a cross-sectional survey of Japanese adolescents. PloS one, 7(9), e45736.

Tolsma, J., van Deurzen, I., Stark, T. H., & Veenstra, R. (2013). Who is bullying whom in ethnically diverse primary schools? Exploring links between bullying, ethnicity, and ethnic diversity in Dutch primary schools. Social Networks, 35(1), 51-61.

Tsang, S. K., Hui, E. K., & Law, B. (2011). Bystander position taking in school bullying: The role of positive identity, self-efficacy, and self-determination. The Scientific World Journal, 11, 2278-2286.

Wang, H., Zhou, X., Lu, C., Wu, J., Deng, X., Hong, L., . . . He, Y. (2012). Adolescent bullying involvement and psychosocial aspects of family and school life: A cross-sectional study from Guangdong Province in China. PloS one, 7(7), e38619.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2012). Patterns of adolescent bullying behaviors: Physical, verbal, exclusion, rumor, and cyber. Journal of School Psychology, 50(4), 521-534.

Wang, J., Nansel, T. R., & Iannotti, R. J. (2011). Cyber and traditional bullying: Differential association with depression. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(4), 415-417.

Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young university students' involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(12), 649-654.

Ybarra, M. L., Boyd, D., Korchmaros, J. D., & Oppenheim, J. K. (2012). Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), 53-58.

Young-Jones, A., Fursa, S., Byrket, J. S., & Sly, J. S. (2014). Bullying affects more than feelings: the long-term implications of victimization on academic motivation in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 1-16.

Gutt ser ned. Foto: Photo Alto / Thierry Foulon