Você está na página 1de 37

Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126 www.elsevier.

com/locate/dr

Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten?


Kathleen Stassen Berger
Social Sciences Department, Bronx Community College, City University of New York, 181st Street and University Avenue, Bronx, NY 10453, USA Received 15 January 2006; revised 1 August 2006 Available online 31 October 2006

Abstract Research on bullying has increased dramatically worldwide, from only 62 citations in PsycINFO from 19001990, to 289 in the 1990s, to 562 from 20002004. Much has been learned, including that bullying takes many forms (physical, verbal, relational), is prevalent in every school, with long-lasting consequences. It is not known how genes, parents, peers, cultural values, and school practices interact to aVect bullying and victimization nor why some schools fail to reduce the harm. This paper reviews past Wndings on school bullying, notes a slowing of publication, reminds readers of the need for the scientiWc process, and highlights the reasons for additional research, especially in data collection, evaluation, developmental understanding, and prevention. 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Bullying; Aggression; Victims; Bully-victims; School; Friendship

Much is now known about bullies and victims, including some surprises: bullies have friends and admirers; victims look like other children; bullying occurs everywhere; victimization is a social event. Discoveries on prevalence, consequences, causes, and prevention often contradict popular assumptions, which is one reason bullying among children has become a productive topic for scientists of many disciplines. Although not reviewed here, bullying among adults has also captured attention. Yet much remains to be discovered, especially from a developmental perspective. A summary of publication history helps explain the current state of knowledge and the urgent need for more scientiWc research.

E-mail address: keen5@ix.netcom.com 0273-2297/$ - see front matter 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2006.08.002

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

91

Research and publication history Researchers in human development have long been interested in peer relationships and in aggression. The current understanding of peer groups emphasizes the importance of friendship at every point of the lifespan, and notes the many reasons that children are accepted or rejected by their classmates, further exploring childrens status as popular, well-liked, controversial, aggressive-rejected, withdrawn-rejected, and neglected (see reviews: Kupersmidt & Dodge, 2004; Ladd, 2005). Similarly, scientists studying violence have recognized a seemingly omnipresent impulse to attack, and have described many causes, forms, and consequences of aggression, varying by species, gender, stage, and context (see Tremblay, Hartup, & Archer, 2005). Research on bullying among children has beneWted from Wndings in both of these areas, but bullying has not yet received the decades of scientiWc attention required for a comprehensive understanding. Ironically, one reason for gaps in research is that interest typically arises from practical and urgent concerns, when a sudden death in school brings public attention and research funding. This immediacy sometimes clashes with the patient, cumulative process of developmental science, as emotions allow science to be forgotten. Within the past 15 years, scholars have shifted from indiVerence to fascination regarding bullies. PsycINFO includes only 27 citations of bully or bulli (peer-reviewed, not counting proper names) from 1900 to 1979 and only 35 in the next decade. In the 1990s, PsycINFO lists 289 cites, and the Wrst listing of bull appeared in the index of Abstracts in Child Development. Those 351 PsycINFO publications for the entire 20th century were surpassed in the Wrst Wve years of the 21st. Between January 1st 2000 and December 31, 2004, 592 peer-reviewed articles, editorials, or book reviews were published, 158 of them in 2004. Other data bases (e.g., Academic Search Premier, ERIC) or related search terms (e.g., victim, harass) reveal a similar increase, although less explosive. [More psychological research overall has been published recently, but few topics unrelated to bullying show dramatic increase.] Why the explosion? It began with one scientist and three suicides. Dan Olweus studied bullying (mobbning) in his native Sweden (1973) and wrote the Wrst scholarly book in English (1978). When three bullied Norwegian boys committed suicide in 1982, their government commissioned Olweus. He reported (1986, translated and updated in English, 1993) what was thought to be extraordinarily high prevalence (20% of Norwegian school children were either bullies or victims) and notable success (school bullying was reduced by half in two years). Olweus inspired researchers world-wide, undertaking major studies in Australia, Canada, England, Finland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and, more recently, the United States. They deWned and explored terminology, assessed prevalence, searched for consequences and causes, and attempted prevention in thousands of schools, making major progress on the Wrst two of these Wve, deWnitions and prevalence, over the past 15 years. Much scholarly work remains on the other three, consequences, causes, and prevention. Unfortunately, the pace of publication is slowing. Only 136 peer-reviewed articles on bullying were published in 2005, about 15% less than in 2004 (PsycINFO again). Only 53 of those 2005 publications (listed on Table 1) included new data on bullying in school, and only 11 were primarily concerned with intervention. Has this slowdown occurred because all is known? By no means. Does the clash between public and scientiWc perspectives (see

92

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Table 1 PsychINFO, peer-reviewed, 2005 articles that include new data about school bullying First author Adelmann Ando Andreau Avils Baldry Berg Bollmer Camodeca Cassidy Cerezo Chan Cullerton-Sen DeRosier de la Villa Moral DeSouza Dhami Fekkes Finklehor Fox Frey Haavet, Ivarsson Jaln Jennifer Luiselli Martin Monks Mooij Newman Nordhagen OMoore Olweus Ortega Pekel-Uludagli Perren Piek Poteat Poynting Rigby Salmivalli Savage Schfer Skues Soresi Storch Theriot Toblin Twemlow Unnever Veenstra Williams Woods Xiao-Qi Primary focus Health behaviors Psychosocial correlates Self-eYcacy Incidence Protective factors Obesity Friendship Coping Coping Questionnaire Non-anonymity Socio-emotional Prevention Attitudes Incidence Socio-economic status Telling Adults Poly-victimization Social skills Prevention Health Mental Health Prevention Prevention Prevention Prevention Psychological skills Prevention Victims Incidence Prevention Prevention Incidence Psychosocial Delinquency Movement disorder Homophobia Boarding Schools Attitudes Prevention Speech problems Stable roles Bonding Counseling Obsessive-Compulsive Self-identiWcation Psychosocial Prevention Bully-victims Bully-victims Sexual minority Arousal Psychosocial Nation United States Japan Greece Spain Italy Sweden United States Italy England England and Spain Canada United States United States Spain Brazil Canada The Netherlands United States England United States Norway Sweden Spain England United States Spain England The Netherlands United States Scandinavia Ireland Norway Spain Turkey Switzerland Australia United States Australia Australia Finland Canada Germany Australia Italy United States United States United States United States United States The Netherlands Canada England China Age or school level 6th grade 7th9th grade 4th6th grade Secondary Secondary Secondary, boys 1013-year olds 11 years (average) 1215-year olds All ages 1st8th grade 4th grade Primary Secondary Secondary 1st grade 911-year olds 217-year olds 911-year olds 3rd6th grade 10th grade Junior High Adolescents Primary and Secondary Primary Primary 46-year olds Secondary Adolescents Age 217 Primary Primary Preschool 5th and 6th grade 7th and 9th grade 711-year olds Middle school boys, all ages Primary and Secondary 4th, 5th, 6th grades All ages Primary and secondary 7th12th grades Primary and secondary One boy, age 14 Primary and middle Primary Primary Middle Adolescents Adolescents Secondary 3rd, 4th, 5th grades

[Adult retrospective accounts, and reviews of already published data, are not included.] Full references are in the bibliography, preceded by an asterisk.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126 Table 2 Divergent views of bullying: public assumptions versus research Wndings Questions to answer What is the Problem? Evidence of the Problem? Who are the culprits? How common is bullying? Origin of the Problem? How problem is solved? How does change occur? Time until solution? Measure of success? Relation to Academics? Public perception and media attention Violence in schools School shootings, suicide A few mean and bad students Rare, not in my neighborhood Probably in parents School-wide policies, e.g., zero tolerance Linear, dose-related A few weeks Bullying eliminated ConXicts, choose one or other ScientiWc method and developmental research

93

All forms of bullying, especially social forms Rejection, isolation, low achievement The entire peer group and school staV In every school, some more than others Multivariate, including genes, peers, policies Whole school eVort, teachers within each class Sometimes zig-zag, threshold needed Years of study, intervention, evaluation Fewer victims, better understanding Connected, choose both

Table 2) discourage researchers and editors? Or have people hoped and promised too much, forgetting that science is usually slow and methodical. More evidence-based research is needed for many reasons. One reason is that, when science leaves a vacuum, superstition rushes insometimes with cruel consequences. Thousands of popular books and guides for parents, children, and teachers promulgate untested and sometimes destructive suggestions. For example, Amazon.com in July 2006 featured three books about bullies. In one, titled How to handle bullies, teasers, and other meanies, the author writes: Bullies are not born that way. They are turned into young bullies by big bullies. Whenever you meet a bully, you can be sure there was a big bully lurking somewhere in his life (Cohen-Posey, 1995, p. 10), all untrue. Then the author advocates bolstering the bullys self-esteem, a strategy that, according to one bullied reader, is not connected to the real world kids today are stuck with. He fears that children who take this advice will suVer because weak chickens get pecked to death (Amazon.com review, Wrst posted November 29, 2005). The other two featured books are no better. One suggests that children avoid bullies by taking the long way home (Romain & Verick, 1997); the other advocates a foolproof plan to deal with bullies and tyrants by being nice (Shapiro & Jankowski, 2005). As with this third book, lessons half-understood from research on childhood bullying are misapplied to adult bullying in oYces, hospitals, and prisons, with potentially dangerous consequences. Another reason more research is needed is that bullying is surprisingly common, aVecting almost every child worldwide, harming them not only at the moment but sometimes for years to come. Fortunately scholars are beginning to understand how to intervene, but often it seems as if the scientiWc method has been forgotten. Much more work needs to be done. This article oVers an update that may lead to appreciation of what has been accomplished, realistic expectations about what remains to be done, and thus, it is hoped, renewed eVort. DeWnitions Science depends on clear, operational deWnitions, yet a major problem with popular advice as well as with early research on victimization has been lack of clarity. The term

94

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

bully was not understood, nor were the distinct characteristics of bullies, victims, and bystanders. On these, scientists have made commendable progress. Bullying deWned Olweus wrote: A student is being bullied or victimized when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other students (2001, p. 56). Other experts phrase it diVerently, with bullying as a systematic abuse of power (Smith & Sharp, 1994, p. 2). Note three crucial elements: repetition, harm, and unequal power. These three characteristics of bullying are accepted by the scientists worldwide (Nansel & Overpeck, 2003; Rigby, 2002b). The research deWnition carefully excludes playful Wghting, a one-time attack, or goodnatured teasing between friends, but includes indirect attacks, especially social or relational bullying. Not all aggression is bullying, but bullying is always aggression, deWned as hurtful and hostile behavior (Gendreau & Archer, 2005) (The scientists deWnition of bullying as harmful and unfair diVers from one slang meaning, a positive one, as in bully for you). Types of bullying Bullying is manifest in many ways, often called physical, verbal, and relational. As the following explains, each of these is distinct, but all may be perpetuated by the same bully and aimed at the same target (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Nishina, 2004; Rigby, 2002b). Physical bullying.hitting, kicking, beating and so onis most obvious, recognized not only by adults but also by children of all ages, everywhere (Smith, Cowie, Olafsson, & Liefoogle, 2002). Adults typically think of physical bullying when they advocate a zero tolerance policy with swift and serious consequences (e.g., Smokowski & Kopasz, 2005, p. 108), but unless many attackers beat one victim (rare on school grounds), no school disciplinarian can reliably diVerentiate physical bullying from self-defense, friendly quarrels, and good-natured rough-housingnone of which require serious punishment. A related form of attack is behavioral bullyingdoing something mean, perhaps stealing lunch, scribbling on a homework paper, holding ones nose. Behavioral bullying can be very harmful. One boy in Chicago killed himself after a classmate poured chocolate milk on his favorite sweatshirt, among the worst of a series of attacks (Greene, 1993, cited in Ladd, 2005). Verbal bullyingrepeated derogatory remarks or namesis more common than physical bullying, especially as children mature. This is illustrated by the following examples. A British team outWtted 7- to 11-year-olds with wireless microphones and video cameras to monitor their every move. Verbal aggression directed at another child was recorded twice as often as physical aggression (Tapper & Boulton, 2005). Likewise, surveys of children in Israel and Los Angeles found that, at least once in the previous month, far more children were mocked, insulted, or humiliated than kicked or punched (6032% in Israel; 5416% in California). In this study, as in many others, physical bullying decreased with maturation much more than verbal bullying did (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Many bullying episodes are called relational bullying (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995), because they disrupt the social relationships between victims and their peers. Although even preschoolers (especially girls) engage in relational bullying (Crick et al., 2006), this form of bullying becomes more prevalent and hurtful at puberty because children become more

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

95

socially skilled and peer approval is paramount (Underwood, 2003; Xie, Swift, Cairns, & Cairns, 2002). Relational bullying occurs when children deliberately ignore a classmates attempt to make conversation or join a game, or when they move away when the target comes near, or when they repeat humiliating gossip. Relational bullying is also called social bullying, although every form of bullying could be called social. Children often disapprove of physical attacks but engage in other forms of social bullying. Bullying also occurs electronically, called cyberbullying, which has become increasingly common (Li, 2006). Among the cyberbullying incidents in one nation (Canada) were a digital photo of an overweight girl showering after gym, sent instantly to cell phones throughout her school (Media Awareness, n.d.), and a website dedicated to lewd comments about a classmate. He said Rather than just some people, say 30 in a cafeteria, hearing them all yell insults at you, its up there for 6 billion people to see (Canadian Broadcasting Company, March 2005). Modes of attack Another way to classify bullying is to distinguish direct and indirect attacks, which children call to my face (direct) or behind my back (indirect). In a direct attack the victim sees the bully; in an indirect attack, the victim is hurt (by gossip, shunning, and so on) but does not know whom to blame. Indirect bullying makes attacks easy, detection hard, and self-defense nigh impossible (Vaillancourt, 2005). Adults almost never intervene. For example, if no one sits near a particular child in the school cafeteria, all the classmates are bullies yet the victim cannot confront the ringleader. This is relational and indirect bullying. If one child tells another that a third child stinks, that is verbal and indirect bullying. In the cyberbullying incident above, the victim never knew who created, posted, or logged onto the hate-Wlled website. He stopped going to school and eventually moved away, his only way to avoid new attacks. Cyberbullying is similar to other bullying, with one crucial diVerence: the technology separates bully and victim, and that allows weak and frightened children to do it, sometimes in retaliation, always indirect. A US survey found cyber bullies outnumbering cyber victims three to one (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Adults sometimes tell children to ignore attacks that cannot cause bodily injury (words can never hurt me) but children Wnd that all bullying, direct or indirect, can be devastating. A book titled And words can hurt forever (Garbarino & deLara, 2002) is accurate. Teachers also are more likely to stop direct physical bullying than indirect relational attacks, even though the later probably is more harmful in the long run (Bauman & Del Rio, 2006). Gender and age diVerences The Wrst wave of research reported that bullying decreased steadily with age, and that more boys were bullies and victims than girls. Later research conWrmed that physical bullying declines with age (Brame, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2001) but found that other forms increase, with a sizable bump between ages 11 and 15 when children experience puberty and change schools (Archer & Cote, 2005; Eslea & Rees, 2001; Espelage, Meban, & Swearer, 2004; Pellegrini & Long, 2002). As gender discrimination became apparent to social scientists, surveys began to include indirect and relational bullying, which girls tend to do at younger ages than boys do

96

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

(Archer & Cote, 2005; Crick et al., 2001). The popular media seized on female bullying, with a 2004 movie titled Mean Girls that grossed more than a hundred million dollars, and with dozens of books, broadcasts, and news stories about the discovery of female aggression (Tavris, 2002, p. B7). How accurate is this portrayal? Girls are sometimes bullies, especially relational bullies, but this is not news to scholars (Owens, Slee, & Shute, 2001; Putallaz & Bierman, 2004; Tavris, 2002). Despite the media discovery, most research still Wnds that boys bully more than girls, and that both sexes are crueler to those of the same sex than of the other sex (Ladd, 2005). When childhood bullying crosses the gender barrier, boys bully girls more than vice-versa (although this may change in adulthood) (MoYtt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). Gender diVerences are intriguing, but gender similarities are more signiWcant for a scientiWc understanding of bullying (Hyde, 2005). Most children avoid bullying, especially as their social and cognitive skills improve. But some become chronic bullies or victims, with their interactions imbedded in their peer group as well as tied to each other. Whether they are male or female, attackers or targets, these are troubled youth (Espelage et al., 2004). Bullies and victims deWned What is a bully? Someone who repeatedly attacks another individual who does not Wght back. Adults sometimes believe that bullies are deeply insecure or mentally deWcient. Not so. For children, it is normal to act like a bully. Toddlers typically hit or kick their mothers and pinch or bite other toddlers; physical aggression probably peaks at about age 2 (Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). Older children call each other fatso, nigger, or bitch; they criticize other childrens hair, shoes and everything in between; they curse at their friends. Young teenagers respond to their peers inept sexual advances with abrupt rejection. These actions seem to be bullying, but no single act deWnes a bully. To be bullying, harmful actions are repeated and victims are defenseless, which is unlikely if normal attacks (e.g., the biting toddler) are discouraged. Most bullies feel powerful, not insecure. Their only evident vulnerability is that they are less attached to their teachers and schools than most children, a generality found in Japan and Korea where academics are prized as well in Europe and North America (Ando, Asakura, & Simons-Morton, 2005; Doll et al., 2004; Schwartz et al., 2002). This distance from teachers does not make a child unpopular, especially in middle school. Indeed, although aggressive young children are rejected, early adolescent bullies may be respected, feared, and even liked (Bukowski & Sippola, 2001; Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Estell, Cairns, Farmer, & Cairns, 2002; Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). They enjoy high social status (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003, p. 1233) with friends who encourage them, onlookers who relish a Wght, classmates who laugh at their remarks, peers who pass on a rumor. What is a victim? Someone defenseless who repeatedly suVers, not someone who is occasionally hurt. Almost every child is hurt on occasionhit by a peer, stung by a remark, sad at being rebuVed. Most shrug oV insults or reciprocate (the response to your mother is your mother) or Wnd protective friends or tactics. But if a child is unusually anxious, hostile, unskilled or sensitive, that may trigger repetition, then rejection, and Wnally victimization.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

97

Many studies have found that victims are of two kinds (e.g., Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001; Unnever, 2005). Most are passive victims, weak, defenseless, submissive. They have few friends, they show pain (reinforcing the bully), they blame themselves. They may feel close to their parents or teachers, but they doubt that anyone can help them. The second kind are bully-victims (also called aggressive victims or provocative victims) because they attack other children as well as being attacked by them. They are disruptive and impulsive, with poor social and problem-solving skills. Their parents punish them, their teachers dislike them, and their peers do not want to play with them. They insult bullies or retaliate (ineVectively), goading their attackers and alienating other children (Mahady Wilton, Craig, & Pepler, 2000; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). All three of thesebullies, bully-victims, and passive victimsdiVer particularly in aggression (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Craig, 1998). Passive victims turn their anger inward, developing internalizing problems (Prinstein, Cheah, & Guyer, 2005). Bullies express aggression outwardly, proactively or reactively (Dodge & Coie, 1987; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002; Vitaro & Brendgen, 2005). Therein lays a crucial distinction between bullies and bully-victims. Proactive aggression is calculated; it precedes provocation. Bullies specialize in proactive aggression, done to display dominance, to bolster power, to win admiration. Reactive aggression is an impulsive response to a real or imagined attack. Reactive aggression is typical of bully-victims, who react to innocent, accidental, or ambiguous aVronts. Unlike socially competent bullies who switch to less direct and less physical modes as they mature, bully-victims stay with physical aggression, both as perpetrators and as targets, throughout childhood (Unnever, 2005). Although there are distinctions, just explained, between bullies and victims, there are similarities as well, including pro-bully and anti-victim attitudes, as found in empirical research (Marsh, Parada, Craven, & Finger, 2004). Bullying and victimization are thought to be reciprocal, not opposing behaviors but instead a social interaction supported by the social context (Haynie et al., 2001, p. 44; Sanders, 2004). Bullies do not act alone; they seek victims and an audience. Observers Most children become prosocial: they cooperate, share materials, invite others to play (Bierman, 2004, p. 18). They are not rejected for their aggression or withdrawal because these behaviors occur infrequently and selectively. Even as preschoolers, they have friends, and by adolescence, some are well-liked and friendly. Although teenage bullies may be popular, and although adolescents feel pressure to reject victims (Rose, Swenson, & Waller, 2004), most of the best-liked (not necessarily the most popular) students are neither bullies nor victims; they are appreciated for their friendliness (Ladd, 2005). However, observers are not neutral (Salmivalli, 2001). Some encourage bullies, as friends or assistants, admiring aggression and disliking school. They circle around a Wght; they laugh at insults; they boycott a victims party. This group becomes more numerous as children grow older. A few children are defenders, who try to stick up for the victim. Among young children, defenders are well liked (Ortega & Monks, 2005). Later in childhood, defenders are generally ineVective, sometimes escalating an attack. Fewer children are defenders by middle school (Menesini et al., 1997; Pellegrini & Long, 2004). Most observers are bystanders, not henchmen or defenders. One intervention strategy is to turn bystanders into eVective defenders.

98

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

In any case, observers are part of a group process in which bully, supporter, assistant of bullies, victims, defenders of victims, all take part (Menesini, Melan, & Pignatti, 2000, p. 262). For example, a playground study found that 85% of bullying episodes involved several observing childrenon average four others (Pepler, Craig, & Roberts, 1998). By their non-intervention, observers become part of a permissive social context (JeVrey, Miller, & Linn, 2001). One scholar concludes that bullies rely on their network of supporters, subordinates, and scapegoats to establish and exercise inXuence and that they consider non-aggressive bystanders as supportive (Rodkin, 2004, p. 95). Bystanders often justify their lack of empathy, blaming the victim, as one child did, explaining that a new classmate packs his own lunch, and he eats things others dont like. When he eats, he takes big bites (Bierman, 2004, p. 42). Recognition that bullying is a social event highlights the importance of friendship. Beginning in preschool years, mutual teasing, wrestling, threatening, apologizing, jostling, hugging, laughing, and so on teach children about themselves and their peers, helping them avoid bullying or victimization even if their family life puts them at risk (Hay, Payne, & Chadwick, 2004; Hodges, Boiven, Vitaro, & Bukowski, 1999; Salmivalli & Issacs, 2005; Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2000). Research conWrms the value of friendship. One longitudinal study of 208 victims, age 1316, found that 72% were no longer victims two years later. According to these children, the main reason was that they found better friends (Smith, Talamelli, Cowie, Naylor, & Chauhan, 2004). Friends not only protect victims, they also help bullies change their ways by decreasing their reliance on dominance, power, and deWance (Bollmer, Milich, Harris, & Maras, 2005). Prevalence The introduction to this article stated that researchers have made major progress assessing the prevalence of bullying. Hundreds of scientists questioning thousands of children in dozens of nations have found that virtually every child has experience as bully, victim, and/ or observer. Research has disproven the idea that bullying is uncommon: it is far more prevalent than most people, including school leaders, imagine (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Dake, Price, Telljohann, & Funk, 2004). Intervention often begins with a survey, the results convincing educators to act. Olweus (1993) originally found that, among primary school students, about 8% were self-acknowledged bullies and about 12% were victims, rates thought to be high. Once researchers elsewhere became aware of Olweus Wndings, they assessed prevalence in their own nations and often found rates above those in Norway, as evident in some large studies listed in Table 3. Smaller studies show more variation, such as 82% of the children in three rural US schools reporting victimization (Dulmus, Theriot, Sowers, & Blackburn, 2004). But major progress may be an overstatement. A valid meta-analysis that combines and compares prevalence from one place to another is not yet possible. DiVerences in students age, sex, ethnicity, and social class; in school size and class size; in educational funding, policy, and practice; in data source and methodology; in reporter bias and statistical analysis; in national values and history; and even in the month and circumstances of data collectionmake it impossible to Wnd a universal, expected level of bullying.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126 Table 3 Prevalence: major, multi-school surveys of Bullies and Victims Source Olweus (1993) Whitney and Smith (1993) Fonzi et al. (1999) Rigby and Slee (1999) Morita et al. (1999) Borg (1999) Nansel et al. (2001) Craig and Pepler (2003) Alikasifoglu et al. (2002) Hanewinkel (2004) Pereira et al. (2004) Fekkes et al. (2005) Nation Norway England Italy Australia Number Age/grade in sample 130,000 2623 1018 25,399 Grades 26 Ages 811 Frequency Now and then Once a week or more

99

Bullies Victims (%) (%) 8 4 11 7 3 17 27 8 9 19 9 16 4 12 10 18 25 14 14 32 9 18 30 10 20 9

Primary school Once a week or more 813-year olds Once a week or more 1418-year olds All grades 914-year olds Grades 610 Grades 610 Grades 911 Grades 58 Grades 56 Ages 911

Japan Malta United States Canada Turkey Germany Portugal

9429 6282 15,686 c.7000 4153 6433 4092

The Netherlands 2766

Twice last term or more Once a week or more Once a week or more Twice or more last week During last term Once a week or more At least three times this term Weekly or more

Complete sources on reference list, marked by a double asterisk (**). DiVerent methods make these not comparable among nations. Each of these percentages refer to a particular population.

Variations by place One strength of research on bullying, evident in Tables 1 and 3, is that scholars from many nations study it. This complicates comparisons but aids our critical analysis (see Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2002). For example, in Portugal the bullying rate is comparatively high. Portuguese culture or history may encourage bullies, but consider one detail of education policy: Portuguese school children must repeat 6th grade unless they pass a rigorous test. Consequently, at least 10% of all 6th graders (more often boys) have been held back two years or more, and these older, bigger children are almost twice as likely (odds ratio 1.78) to be bullies as the class average (Pereira, Mendonca, Neto, Valente, & Smith, 2004). A higher proportion of them are immigrants, from low-income families. Does retention, academic failure, family background, socioeconomic status, or gender make them more likely to bully, thus increasing the Portuguese percentages? Or perhaps inadequate school funding or poor playground design is partly to blame, as the researchers suggest (Pereira et al., 2004). Without more data and analysis, no scientist could conclude that Portuguese culture promotes bullying. Every comprehensive review reports large variations in frequency and type of bullying between nations, regions within nations, and schools within regions. Examples abound. In Flemish Belgium, twice as many 15-year-olds say they are bullies as say they are victims, unlike in French-speaking Belgium where more 15-year-olds say that they are victims than bullies (Craig & Harel, 2004). Japanese bullyingcalled ijime usually is relational, not physical (Ando et al., 2005), which may be why Japanese girls are more often bullies than Japanese boys (Morita, Soeda, Soeda, & Taki, 1999). Bullying in Italy tends to be more physical than in other nations (Baldry, 1998; Fonzi et al., 1999).

100

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Culture may underlie such variations. But another possibility is that children behave similarly the world over but language obscures that commonality, because the meanings and connotations of the word bully vary widely across countries (Benbenishty & Astor, 2003, p. 319). For instance, Italian children are asked about prepotenze or violenze (Fonzi et al., 1999; Menesini & Modiano, 2003), terms that evoke physical harm. Language is only one of the complications impeding comparisons from one place to another. Another complication is the lack of a common operational deWnition. The triad cited earlierharmful, repeated, unequalis generally accepted but speciWcs are not. For example, how often, within what time period, must incidents be repeated to cross the line from occasional unpleasantness to bonaWde bullying? Olweus originally asked Norwegian children about bullying now and then, a phrase that each child could interpret diVerently. Olweus has replaced now and then with speciWc frequencies: two or more times in the past month or once a week or more are common thresholds (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Nevertheless, deWnitions and questions still vary from study to study. For instance, only two studies on bullies were published in 2005 in Developmental Psychology, an inXuential journal published by the American Psychological Association. In one, Dutch researchers asked children about bullying (e.g., Who do you bully? and By whom are you bullied) without deWning the term (Veenstra et al., 2005). In the other US researchers avoided the word bully but asked children 22 yes/no questions (e.g., I called kids names at school) (Frey et al., 2005). This latter study was a model of research, with multiple measures and a control group (more details soon). Yet without a common deWnition, a valid comparison of bullying frequency between even these two studies is impossible. Researchers are trying to overcome diVerences in language and deWnition. A United Nations (UN) survey of Young Peoples Health in Context (Currie et al., 2004), deWned bullying before asking questions. The deWnition was carefully crafted and then translated into the local language, with words chosen to help children interpret bullying in the same way no matter what their linguistic background. In English, the children read: We say that a student is being bullied when another student, or a group of students, says or does nasty and unpleasant things to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly in a way he or she doesnt like, or when he or she is deliberately left out of things. But is it not bullying when two students of about the same strength quarrel or Wght. It is also not bullying when the teasing is done in a friendly or playful way (Craig & Harel, 2004, p. 133. Emphasis in original.) After reading this, about 50,000 students from 34 European nations answered two questions about the past few months: How often have you been bullied? and How often have you taken part in bullying another student? with Wve choices, from never to several times a week. As already explained, no international comparison is precise. However, this study conWrmed other surveys: high prevalence and wide variation. Almost a third of all children said they are bullies, victims, or both two or three times or more in the past months. Among 13-year-olds, the range of victims was from 6% (Sweden) to 36% (Lithuania), the range of bullies from 4% to 37% (Sweden and Lithuania again). The same survey questions put the United States and Canada about midway, with 30% of US 13-year-olds either a bully or a victim, as were 31% of Canadian 13-year-olds. A curious Wnding from the UN study was that bullying several times in the past month generally increased (by 4%)

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

101

between ages 11 and 15 as victimization decreased (by 6%) (see Fig. 1). It could be that older bullies pick on younger victims, or that many high school bullies target fewer victims, or that older bullies boast while victims deny. Sources of data This highlights another problem. Most studies (two-thirds in 2005) rely on anonymous self-reports to identify bullies and victims. Yet some bullies do not admit or even realize that their actions are harmful, partly because they interpret accidental aVronts as hostile (Castro, Veerman, Koops, Bosch, & Monshouwer, 2002). They may overreport, with pride, their quickness to retaliate, or underreport if they realize others might blame them. One study found that, compared to self-reports, peers nominated far more children as bullies. Surprisingly, this study found no correlation between self and peer-reported bullies (Cole, Cornell, & Sheras, 2006). Victims also misperceive or misreport, perhaps to justify, or deny, their situation. Another study found that, as they age, children are less likely to say that they are victims, but the number of victims reported by peers and teachers stays the same (Salmivalli, 2002). Many investigators have found that both bullies and victims suVer from distorted information processing; neither may accurately perceive their status (Camodeca & Goossens, 2005; Coie & Dodge, 1998). Added to misreporting and misperceiving are the ambiguities of teasing and indirect bullying, especially in adolescence when cross-sex bullying increases (Craig, Pepler, Connolly, & Henderson, 2001; Espelage & Holt, 2001). Unwelcome sexual comments are typically uttered by someone of the other sex but sexual rumors are usually started by boy against boy, or girl against girl, perhaps because comments are a clumsy attempt to secure sexual attention (not bullying) but rumors are designed to humiliate (bullying) (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). As an alternative to self-reports, some researchers ask classmates to identify bullies or victims, often with speciWc questions (e.g., who is likely to call kids names?). Students readily comply. However, analysis of this labor intensive peer nomination methodology is complex (Juvonen et al., 2003, p. 1232). A additional problem is that peers may reXect
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 boys-B girls-B boys-V girls-V 11 year olds 13 year olds 15year olds

Fig. 1. More bullies but fewer victims as children grow older. Average percentage of bullies (B) or victims (V) in 34 nations; Frequency twice or more in the past few months.

102

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

reputation and interpretation more than emotional reality. For example, one study of 7th and 8th graders found that 14% were victims according to both classmates and themselves. A larger group (23%) thought they were victims (picked on, ridiculed, called names, physically hurt, and so on) but their classmates did not agree. Another, smaller group (7%) did not consider themselves victims but their classmates did. Both sources had concurrent validity: the 37% (14 + 23) self-identiWed victims tended to have low self-esteem and the 21% (14 + 7) whom classmates designated as victims were socially rejected (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2001). Peer-reports are not necessarily superior to self-reports (Solberg & Olweus, 2003). Adults also report data. Unfortunately, outsiders miss many incidents, perhaps because the observers were not as unobtrusive as assumed (Pellegrini, 2001b, p. 139). Teachers identify some victims who do not identify themselves (Cullerton-Sen & Crick, 2005) but bullying often occurs outside the classroom, in bathrooms, lunchrooms, playgrounds. School leaders seem oblivious. In Japan, self-reports revealed about Wve times as much bullying as school administrators reported to the government (Ando et al., 2005). The childrens code forbids being a tattletale, snitch, or rat, which prevents parents from knowing. Probably for this reason, parents report their young children (age 26) bullied twice as much as their older children (age 1317), an age discrepancy not found in peer or self reports (Nordhagen, Neisen, Stigum, & Kohler, 2005). Researchers have assessed prevalence covertly. One group outWtted 7- to 11-year-olds with wireless microphones and video cameras (Tapper & Boulton, 2005). The equipment was not usually activated (so the children became used to it), but each child was monitored in turn (except one girl, who refused). Incidents classiWed as direct bullying occurred 7.1 times per hour, an amazingly high rate, especially since every child (most of whom were not considered bullies) was included. Another study videotaped children on a school playground and again found rates much higher than in self-reports, with boys bullying about 5 times per hour and girls, about 3 times (Pepler et al., 1998). In these studies, either the adult deWnitions were too broad, or electronic data Wnds bullying that the children themselves do not report. Another way to measure victimization is through public records, such as school absences, oYcial assaults, injuries treated at hospitals, police crime logs, and premature deaths. Each increases with victimization, but they reXect only severe problems. Moreover, some absences, assaults and so on are unrelated to bullying, so, again, these measurements are imprecise. What then, are scientists to do? The best approach is a multi-method, multi-informant research strategy (Pellegrini, 2001a, p. 67), using self-reports, peer reports, adult observers, and public records, with a variety of questionnaires, interviews, and observations. An analysis by Ladd found that by middle childhood, a range of informants, including self, peers, and teachers (but less so parents) together produced better estimates (2005, p. 266). However, every social scientist realizes that obtaining data for large, representative samples, from multiple sources, with parental, school and child consent, is an arduous task, almost as hard as it is to combine, discount, and multiply various sources (Cillessen & Bukowski, 2000) and then to compare the results from one study to another, or even within one study with multiple longitudinal measures. Remember the project in which children answered 22 yes/no questions? Those researchers also asked teachers and deployed playground observers, who found that almost all (77%) children were bullies or encouraged bullying. After initial assessment, 3rd to 6th

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

103

grade teachers in 36 classrooms delivered an intense, anti-bullying curriculum while a control group had no such intervention. Follow-up assessments found both successes (in observations) and failures (in self-reported bullying) (Frey et al., 2005). This illustrates another problem: when results are mixed (as they usually are), what is most accurate? Since perception is crucial, an identical shove, insult, or brush-oV can be inconsequential or devastating; bullies, victims, peers, and adults do not agree. Each brings his or her hopes: perhaps the playground observers above wanted successful intervention and misinterpreted some incidents, or perhaps the bullies did not want to admit that they changed. One measure often used is how often students tell teachers about bullying, based on the assumption that, after intervention, students will have more conWdence in their teachers ability to help. However, this may be a misleading. For example, in a major intervention in Texas, both telling and bullying increased (Rosenbluth, Whitaker, Sanchez, & Valle, 2004) and in another intervention in Ireland both bullying and willingness to tell decreased (OMoore & Minton, 2005). We are back to self-reports, still the primary source to distinguish bullies and victims. Perhaps children know best after all. The most devastating aspect of victimization is in selfperception, and the threshold for psychic pain varies from child to child (Boivin, Hymel, & Hodges, 2001; Graham & Juvonen, 2001; Hawker & Boulton, 2000). This may explain another study in which students reported what classmates did to them as well as whether or not they were victims. Only half of the victimized children (according to their experiences) considered themselves victims. That half tended to be most frequently hurt, although individual diVerences in self-perception were apparent (Theriot, Dulmus, Sowers, & Johnson, 2005). Similar results came from a study in which victimized students were asked if they told someone else. The 71% who told adults usually had experienced bullying for a longer time (Unnever & Cornell, 2004). Perhaps victims know something that eludes outsiders, the diVerence between occasional unpleasantness and hurtful bullying. The next step in prevalence research may be to include a question regarding impact, intended (for bullies) or experienced (for victims). Consequences Problems remain in determining consequences as well. A developmental approach is sorely needed. Calling another child fat, for instance, is much more harmful at age 13 than at age 3. Long-term consequences are aVected by numerous factors, not only developmental stage but also culture, sex, chronicity, and personality. Retrospective accounts are biased, although it is not known precisely how much, in what direction, and when (Brainard & Reyna, 2005). Misperceptions Regarding consequences, the clash between popular understanding and scientiWc research is blatant. Many adults use their rosy memories of childhood to obscure the crushing rejection and loneliness that some chronic victims feel. Before delving into speciWcs, let us destroy the notion that the consequences of bullying may be beneWcial, a myth that was common among some scientists as well as non-scientists before the past two decades of research. For instance, the ethologist Konrad Lorenz (1969) suggested that

104

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

bullying beneWts many animal species by insuring that the strongest will mate, and therefore that the next generation will be more Wt than the past one. This ethological hypothesis still lingers, as found in a review of theories about bullying (Nishina, 2004). One group suggests that: social conXict can be a productive forum (Gottheil & Dubow, 2001, p. 26), teaching negotiation. Children and teachers have made the same mistake. One early US study of junior high students in the midwest (mostly European-American, native-born, middle class) found that 61% thought bullying helps a person by making them tougher (Hoover, Oliver, & Hazler, 1992), and another study, this one in Wisconsin, found that 27% of a group of 797 teachers believed that teasing was harmless (Holt & Keyes, 2004). Scientists have tested this theory, and the data refutes it. Although some forms of aggression may aid social coherence, sexual bonding, group loyalty, and even mating, and although behaviors that look like aggression to adults (e.g., rough-and-tumble play) beneWt children, bullying is always harmful. Far from an interaction that teaches negotiation, bullying is a one-sided, repeated attack with negative consequences for victims and probably for bullies and observers as well (discussed soon). At Wrst when it was discovered that humans are similar to other animals, some people believed that humans must follow the same animal patterns. A developmental perspective reveals why this conclusion is false. All animals share many innate impulsesaggression, fear, attachment, curiosity, sex and so onand all species teach their young how, when, and with whom to express those impulses. For this reason, parents teach children to control their aggression (Hawley, 1999; Tremblay & Nagin, 2005). Humans have developed laws and prisons to reinforce that lesson; societies depend on modiWcation and limitation of angry impulses. Usually, families and cultures teach control of aggression. With parents and then with peers, children develop prosocial skills, learning to distinguish a fair Wght from an unfair one. Only a few (4% in one study) are victims year after year (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Wardrop, 2001) or are steadily aggressive throughout childhood (7% in six longitudinal studies) (Broidy et al., 2003). Victimization is less stable than bullying over the years of childhood, probably because victims want to change their status more than bullies do. With time and friendship, not only do victimized children become more accepted but also many aggressive children become less hostile (Haselager, Cillessen, Van Lieshout, RiksenWalraven, & Hartup, 2002). Most older adolescents learn to avoid bullying if they have not already done so (Hawley & Vaughn, 2003). Thus the data does not support any theory that bullying is inevitable or beneWcial. Now consider speciWc developmental consequences. Consequences for victims Chronic bullying can be fatal. Examples include the three suicides already mentioned in Norway; 15 more who captured headlines in Japan in 19941995 (including one victim whose suicide note named his four tormenters); the carnage at Port Arthur, Australia, 1996 (where a chronically bullied young man shot and killed 35 strangers); or three recent examples from the United States: Columbine, Colorado, 1999 (where two bullied boys killed 15 including themselves), El Cajon, California, 2001 (one victim killed 2 and wounded 13), and Red Lake, Minnesota, 2005 (10 dead). There are many more less dramatic examples: bully-victim relationships underlie most childhood assaults, suicides, and homicides. The US Secret Service analyzed school shootings; 71% of the shooters had been victims

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

105

(Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002). This was conWrmed by a medical team (Anderson et al., 2001). Moreover non-fatal aggression occurs routinely (Leinhardt & Willert, 2002, p. 39). A review of cross-sectional studies Wnds that victims experience anxiety, fear, and depression, not only when they are victimized but for years afterwards (Hawker & Boulton, 2000). A study of close to 50,000 children in two Asian and Wve European countries found that everywhere victimization has serious negative social and emotional correlates (Eslea et al., 2003, p. 80). The word correlates raises a question. Might victims be troubled before their abuse, and thus negative social and emotional consequences would occur without bullying? Yes and no. Yes, many victims are troubled, but no, that does not account for the outcomes. Longitudinal research repeatedly Wnds that chronic victimization increases loneliness and depression, making any problems worse (e.g., Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Dill, Vernberg, Fonagy, Twemlow, & Gamm, 2004; Kochenderfer-Ladd & Ladd, 2001; Lopez & DuBois, 2005). The likely reason, according to several scholars, is that victims come to dislike themselves, distrust their peers, and fear schooland those feelings lead to more isolation, deeper depression, and further abuse (Prinstein et al., 2005; TroopGordon & Ladd, 2005). Troubled children are not only more likely to become victims or bullies, they are also more likely to suVer because of it. So are children who are unusual in some way. Those with disabilities are particularly vulnerable (de Monchy, Pijl, & Zandberg, 2004; Flynt & Morton, 2004), as are boys thought to be homosexual, who often are severely bullied and who remember the details for years afterwards, adding to their trauma (Rivers, 2001, 2004). A study of multiple types of victimization (33 types in all) found, as expected, that children who experienced poly-victimization were more likely to be depressed and anxious than children who experienced only one type. In fact, it is infrequent that a single victimization, even a serious one, by itself, has a large traumatic inXuence (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005, 1309). But of all 33 types of victimization, emotional bullying was the one type most likely to harm a childs mental health. Thus, time and time again, scientists discover that the very students who most need to learn from peers and friends are the ones whom bullies prevent from such learning. Consequences for bullies Bullies cut themselves oV from important learning as well. The negative consequences for bullies are not immediately obvious, since bullies seem unscathed in primary and middle school. Their social standing and self-concept are similar to that of observers, and markedly better than victims (Juvonen et al., 2001). In primary school, bullies do well academically (Woods & Wolke, 2004) and in middle school, bullying may increase popularity (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004; Keisner & Pastore, 2005; Rose et al., 2004). A developmental view tells another story. Bullies, like victims, have more psychological and physical illnesses than other children, which becomes increasingly problematic (Kumpulainen, Rsnen, & Puura, 2001; Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005). In addition, by high school, bullying becomes maladaptive and victims Wnd friends. Whereas young children solve conXicts by Wghting (ideal for a bully), adolescents and adults prefer negotiation and disengagement (which bullies never learn) (Laursen, Finkelstein, & Betts, 2001; Smith, Shu, & Madsen, 2001). As one team explains: In the short term, bullying might

106

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

allow children to achieve their immediate goals without learning socially appropriate ways to negotiate with others [this results in] persistent maladaptive patterns (Haynie et al., 2001, p. 31). These maladaptive patterns become self-destructive. Bullies risk injury, addiction, and prison. A 12-nation study found more serious injuries among adolescent bullies than the average adolescent, with an odds ratio of about 1.5 (Picket et al., 2002). A 25-nation study found that adolescent bullies are more likely than victims or observers to drink alcohol and get into Wghts (Nansel, Overpeck, Saluja, & Ruan, 2004). Olweus (1999) reported that a third of all boys who were bullies in early primary school have three or more criminal convictions by age 24, far higher than former victims (less than 10%) or non-bullies (about 10%). A survey of 16,410 high school students in Finland found that male bullies were over four times as likely to think about killing themselves as other boys (Kaltiala-Heino, Rimpela, Marttunen, Rimpela, & Rantanen, 1999). Female bullies suVer as much, or more, when they mature. They tend to choose violent partners, give birth as teenagers to children who are sick, disruptive, and aggressive, and become both perpetrators and victims of domestic abuse (Putallaz & Bierman, 2004). Thus, unless they change their ways and their associations, childhood bullies are on a developmental path that turns ugly. As two scientists specializing in peer relations explain we hypothesize that for perceived-popular youth [who tend to be relationally aggressive], short term advantages may be combined with long-term disadvantages. Establishing whether this is true will require long-term follow-up (Cillessen & Rose, 2005, p. 104). This plea for more prospective studies of school bullying, controlling for genetic and familial inXuences, is heard from many other researchers as well (e.g., Rigby, 2003). All signs now point to a diYcult adulthood for childhood bullies; conWrmation is needed. No doubt bully-victims suVer most of all, according to every comparative study (e.g., Haynie et al., 2001; Schwartz et al., 2001; Unnever, 2005). Not only are they rejected, they are most troubled by anger and depression. The disproven bromide that childhood bullies are lonely and unhappy may have arisen because of bully-victims, who are reactive, impulsive, and dysregulated (Unnever, 2005, p. 154). Many bully-victims have a diagnosed psychopathology: ADHD, developmental delay, oppositional deWant disorder, conduct disorder (Nordhagen et al., 2005; Perry et al., 2001). Their behavior leads to rejection even if they try to improve (Bierman, 2004), which makes prevention crucial. Compared to either bullies or passive victims, bully-victims are more physically aggressive (both reactively and proactively), more harshly victimized, and least likely to experience parental support, peer friendships, or school success (Kumpulainen et al., 2001; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002). Consequences for the peer group Everyones academic achievement is reduced when bullying is frequent. As already reviewed, victims are the Wrst to suVer, although some young victims are good students (bullied because of it) as are some bullies. Among the signs of victimization are underachievement, school alienation, stomach and head aches, unexplained reluctance to go to school, and excessive absences. If childhood victimization becomes chronic, social relationships, academic success, and employment in adulthood are aVected, at least according to retrospective reports (Macmillan & Hagan, 2004; Schfer et al., 2004). Bullies probably suVer as well, with lower marks and a higher risk of leaving school without a diploma.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

107

Both victimization and bullying predict (not merely correlate with) aggression, anxiety, depression, underachievement, and delinquency (Hanish & Guerra, 2002; Lopez & DuBois, 2005; Nishina et al., 2005). However, when classmates who are bullies or victims are aVected, then everyones education suVers. Disruptions and distractions reduce learning. On days when uninvolved students observe bullying, they dislike school more (Nishina & Juvonen, 2005). Neuroscientists have recently discovered mirror neurons that respond to a witnessed event as if observers experienced it themselves. As one reviewer explains, researchers have turned to the human brain and found neural activity that mirrors not only the movement but also the intentions, sensations, and emotions of those around us (Miller, 2005, p. 945). Observers who feel victimized may try to distance themselves, or to identify with the bully, both strategies leading to negative consequences. Neurological activation when witnessing bullying has not been proven with brain scans of children, but research has found that adults have similar physiological reactions (e.g., heart rate) when they recall observed bullying as when recalling their own victimization (Janson & Hazler, 2004). Children may as well. Whether children are participants or witnesses, whether learning occurs neurologically or only through observation and experience, for bystanders a valuable opportunity for learning personal eYcacy and social empowerment is lost (JeVrey et al., 2001, p. 153). Children who see bullying, day after day, absorb harmful lessons: bystanders should not intervene; victims deserve their fate; power beats fairness; adults do not care about children. Once again, scientists are presented with a challenge. To discover the true impact of bullying for everyone, a prospective developmental approach is required. Humans are prone to denial, forgetfulness, and bias. Many developmental eventspremature births, divorce, sexual abuse, and employed mothers among themhave been portrayed as far more destructive, or sometimes far more benign, than developmental research now Wnds them to be. The consequences of bullying have been exaggerated and dismissed, victimization has been remembered with fondness and terror, observers may be unscathed or damaged. Only scientiWc research can disprove the alarmist or the apologist. No doubt some are harmed; longitudinal data will reveal how widespread, inevitable, and enduring that harm is. Causes EVorts to Wnd causes have also been hampered by the lack of prospective research. The life-span perspective stresses that human behavior has multiple causes and contexts, changing in many directions at once, with culture and cohort always inXuential (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 1998). Many factors, from the genes set at conception to a teachers momentary reaction, within cultural and historical systems, cause every episode of bullying. As explained, low self-esteem, social withdrawal, and personal anxiety often predate victimization, but bullying worsens those very attributes (Dill et al., 2004; Egan & Perry, 1998). Exactly what fuels this destructive spiral? We now examine some possible causes, among them the childs appearance, ethnicity, culture, family, and genes. All have some eVect; none stands alone. Appearance Does a childs appearance make other children pick on him or her? Are victims fat, or short, or weird? Yes, but so are many other children. Indeed, almost every child is odd

108

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

ears stick out, feet too big, hair styled wrong, pants too loose, and so on. A childs reaction to teasinglaughter or angerusually halts the bully. Thus, most aspects of appearance do not cause bullying, although they accompany it. Among primary school boys, one physical characteristic is crucialsize. Big bullies harass small victims (Olweus, 1993). Appearing powerless is also a problem. In Japan, college students examined photographs of children they had never seen. Many (70%) chose one as a likely victim; he looked weak. They were right, he was chronically bullied (Ono & Hasegawa, 2001). Ethnicity and culture Ethnic bullying is a particular worry in multi-racial communities or in nations with increasing numbers of immigrants (Smith, 2003). Ethnic gangs and racist remarks are prevalent, and a national US study Wnds immigrant children more at risk of bullying (Yu, Huang, & Schwalberg, 2003). However, bullying may be more likely within ethnic/racial groups than between them. A survey in Australia found no ethnic diVerences in incidence of bullying (Nguy & Hunt, 2004); a British study of South Asian students found more victimization by other Asian students than by students of traditional English heritage (Eslea & Mukhtar, 2000). In the United States, one large survey of bullied adolescents found that only one in 12 (8%) thought that their race or religion was the reason (Nansel et al., 2001) and a small study in Mississippi found no signiWcant black/white diVerences (Seals & Young, 2003). Contrary data comes from several US studies that report more victims and fewer bullies among children of Asian descent (Juvonen et al., 2003; Mouttapa, Valenta, Gallaher, Rohrbach, & Unger, 2004; Zhou, Peverly, Xin, Huang, & Wang, 2003). For these children, it is not known if size, language, or ethnicity is the key variable. A gap in the research precludes deWnitive conclusions. Although bullying is not merely a problem of individuals, anonymous self-reports are still the mainstay of data collection. Victims are almost never asked to identify themselves and their bullies. Thus no one knows how much bullying is intra-racial or inter-racial. There are two hopeful signs that bullying does not usually exacerbate ethnic tensions: bullies usually victimize others of their same sex, grade, and ethnicity; a study of 77 California classrooms found that, with greater ethnic diversity, children of all ethnic backgrounds (African, Asian, European, and Latino) were less victimized and less lonely (Bellmore, Witkow, Graham, & Juvonen, 2004). These authors Wnd positive eVects of ethnic diversity on social adjustment when ethnicity is studied in context (p. 1171). Might some cultures encourage bullying? Large international variations in rates of homicide and capital punishment indicate cultural diVerences in attitudes regarding violence (Bergeron & Schneider, 2005). However, these diVerences are hard to quantify regarding bullying. For example, Asians and Anglos within England share attitudes about aggression (Thanzami & Archer, 2005). Japanese and Australian students, expected to diVer because of their collectivist versus individualistic cultures, were found to be quite similar in their attitudes about bullying. In this study, gender diVerences were apparent, with Japanese females more similar to Australian females than to Japanese males (Nesdale & Naito, 2005). A related hypothesis is that socioeconomic status creates bullies or victims. Again, the data is mixed. Some wealthier nations report more bullying than nearby poorer ones (e.g., Japan over China, England over Ireland), some poor nations have more bullying than

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

109

nearby richer ones (Lithuania over Poland; Greenland over Canada) (Craig & Harel, 2004). Economic patterns also vary within nations. A study of Dutch 11-year-olds found no economic diVerences (Veenstra et al., 2005) but a study in Portugal found that lower income students were more often bullies and victims (Pereira et al., 2004). Likewise in Malta, lower income children were likely to be both bullies and victims, but academic tracking seemed to be the reason (Borg, 1999). Overall, culture, ethnicity, and income are sometimes relevant, but none inevitably creates bullies. Families Many researchers have investigated family origins of victims and bullies. SpeciWcs depend partly on gender and role (Duncan, 2004; Finnegan, Hodges, & Perry, 1998; Holmes & Holmes-Lonergan, 2004; Maccoby, 2000; Shields & Cicchetti, 2001). Generally, harsh, neglecting, or rejecting parents are more likely to rear aggressive victims, unable to control their impulses, particularly if their mothers are angry and powerless. Bullies often report less attachment to their parents than the average child, and their families may be abusive and cold, at least according to some of the reviews. Boy victims often are unusually close their mothers, although their fathers may be more distant. The mothers of girl victims, however, are more hostile than overprotective. Correlations between parents and children are bi-directional. Since parents and children react to each other, mothers may be harsh because their children are aggressive and may be protective because their children are victims, as well as vice-versa. Again prospective research is needed. Ongoing work in Oregon suggests that parent training prevents some of this vicious cycle (Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). In the Oregon studies as well as in other work, siblings are sometimes crucial. Siblings may be protective (Tisak & Tisak, 1996) but children bullied by older siblings are likely to become bullies or victims (Wolke & Samara, 2004). Although many studies Wnd family inXuences as correlates, and some Wnd plausible causes, a developmental perspective no longer looks to the family as the determinant of antisocial or prosocial behavior (Baldry & Farrington, 2000; Bierman, 2004; Dishion & Bullock, 2002; OConnor, 2002). Many studies on resilience, for instance, Wnd that some children with inadequate families develop good social skills (Luthar, 2003). Inherited temperament, intelligence, talent, and sex may be the explanation. Genes Genetic inXuences are now recognized as pervasive, aVecting every behavior. Some children are genetically predisposed to be unusually aggressive, impulsive, or submissive. Could becoming a bully or victim be the result? Reviews of genetic inXuences on aggression Wnd that some emotional aspects of aggression are genetic (e.g., anger, temper) but expression of aggression (e.g., delinquency) is strongly inXuenced by other factors (DiLalla, 2003; Raine, 2002; Ree & Waldman, 2002). A genetic tendency to be aggressive combined with coercive parents and antisocial friends often produces a bully; being weak and submissive by nature and being bullied by older brothers but protected by ones mother is likely to produce a victim. Especially when a childs inherited tendencies are extreme, early parenting and other environmental inXuences may be crucial, helping aggressive children to develop empathy

110

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

and fearful children to become assertive. The 15% or so of infants who are temperamentally diYcult cannot erase their genes, but they need not become insensitive bullies or anxious victims; they can become the brave leaders or thoughtful followers that every social group needs (Bukowski & Sippola, 2001; Kagan & Snidman, 2004). The most obvious interaction of nature and nurture come from the genes on the Y chromosome, aVecting hormones and body structure. According to a careful review, the hypothesis that testosterone makes boys aggressive is only partly valid, because environment and culture add their inXuence by rewarding, punishing, and/or ignoring behaviors, thereby exaggerating, diminishing, distorting, or permitting the expression of biologically based behaviors (Van Goozen, 2005, p. 298). This statement applies to every genetic tendency. Throughout the lifespan, gender diVerences in aggression wax and wane, guided by social forces. One meta-analysis Wnd boys are more aggressive than girls by age 4 (Archer, 2004); another does not (Keenan & Shaw, 1997). As already explained, some reports suggest that girls are bullies as often as boys, with relational and indirect bullying that is unlikely to surface in surveys. Other reports suggest that boys outnumber girls in every kind of bullying. On self-reports, boys are bullies twice as often as girls. However, the ratio varies much more than the Y chromosome would predict. For example, for 11-year-olds in the UN study, the XY:XX ratio is three to one in Poland, Greece, and Ireland, but almost even in Macedonia and Greenland (Craig & Harel, 2004). Looking at all the research, male/female ratios depend on how and when bullying is assessed as well as on the childrens culture, because of a complicated interplay between genes and the social context (DiLalla, 2003, p. 615; Johnston & Edwards, 2002). This complicated interplay is illustrated by a well-known and much admired study that began with virtually all infants born between April 1972 and March 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand. A genetic allele that reduced the expression of MAOA (monoamine oxidase A, which aVects various neurotransmitters) was inherited by 37% of them. During childhood, about 34% of this New Zealand cohort were probably, or deWnitely, mistreated. There was no correlation between MAOA and nurturance, which meant that more than a third were high in MAOA and well-nurtured, and about half had a mixed background (either low in MAOA but well treated or high in MAOA but low in nurturance). That left 12% with the worst combination, low MAOA and low nurturance. By current deWnitions (this study began before the explosion of bully research) most of the boys with this double risk were bullies or aggressive-victims, as they often antagonized their parents, peers, teachers, and the police. By age 26, almost 60% of these doubly impaired boys had been convicted of a violent oVense. By contrast, only 4% of the boys with low MAOA but good parental care were arrested and convicted, a rate even lower that the opposite mixture, high MAOA and poor care (Caspi et al., 2002). Thus the child-rearing environment determined whether this allele would be destructive or not. Research on rhesus monkeys conWrms this geneenvironment interaction (Suomi, 2005). Another particular allele predisposes a monkey to aggression. If that monkey is male, chances are he will be rejected by adulthood, more likely to die than to mate. If that monkey is female, she is likely to become an inadequate mother, raising antisocial oVspring. However, if a newborn with the aggressive allele is removed at birth from its biological mother (who also has that allele) and is raised by a nurturant mother, he or she develops adequate social skills.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

111

These conclusions are echoed for human behaviors that have beneWted from decades of prospective, longitudinal research, such as depression, intelligence, and schizophrenia. Genes are inXuential, but their expression depends on many particulars of the environment. To Wnd what causes a child to become a bully or a victim, researchers need to do what they have not yet done, look at interactions between all the factors just explored. This is especially apparent when children have some kind of disability, such as a speech impairment, movement handicap, behavioral disorder, or learning disability. Children with these problems may be more likely to be victims, or bully-victims. Yet probably the disability plus the school cause the problem. If the child is in an inclusion program, and the teacher does not recognize special vulnerability, victimization is likely (de Monchy et al., 2004; Norwich & Kelly, 2004). One study found that movement disordered children were not more often victims, but, when victimization did occur, the childs self-esteem was particularly likely to be aVected (Piek, Barrett, Allen, Jones, & Louise, 2005). To sum up, many factors cause bullying, but none works alone. Size, behavior, culture, family, and genes place children at risk, but risk does not mean that a particular child will become either a bully or a victim. As found regarding many aspects of development, although background and genes almost always have some eVect, the immediate context is pivotal. Prevention at school The power of the immediate context is evident when comparing schools in one nation, at the same time, using the same measures. Olweus (1993) reported bullying four times more frequent in some Norwegian schools than others. A fourfold diVerence was also found in Australia (Rigby, 2002b) and a sixfold diVerence among schools in Scotland (Mellor, 1999). Schools diVer in severity as well, not because of size, urban/rural status, or ethnicity but on other variables that seem particular to one school or even one classroom (Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, & Clayton, 2002; Galloway & Roland, 2004; Kasen, Berenson, Cohen, & Johnson, 2004; Reinke & Herman, 2002). Many Americans were surprised that the dramatic school shootings were not in big city schools. Many scholars expected Israeli geopolitical factors (i.e., the escalating Arab-Jewish conXict) to spill over into schools, but that made surprisingly little diVerence in bullying compared to each schools culture (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). Disappointing? Since schools have a major impact, some adults may conclude that schools can eliminate bullying. Not so. Many have tried. The outcome has been called disappointing, a word used frequently, including in reports from Scandinavia (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Voeten, & Sinisammal, 2004), Europe (Alsaker, 2004), Japan (Okayasu & Takayama, 2004), and the United States (Juvonen & Graham, 2004; Limber, Nation, Tracy, Melton, & Vlerx, 2004). One reason may be that the bar is set too high. Many seek to replicate the 50% reduction that Olweus achieved in his Wrst national eVort, forgetting that such results are rare in any application of science to the real world. Even in Norway, Olweus success was not universal (Roland, 2000). Changing a behavior pattern (of bullying or of anything else) is a long, gradual process, guided by intense eVort and careful evaluation.

112

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Unfortunately, few school interventions have been scientiWcally evaluated. Some popular policies (e.g., zero tolerance, metal detectors, separating bullies from other children) seem antithetical to best developmental practice, but schools with these policies rarely evaluate the results. At the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado, Elliot (1999) analyzed 450 anti-bully programs used in North American schools. He deplored the scarcity of evaluation, and recommended only one (the Olweus model) that met evidence-based standards of success. Similarly lack of evaluation is a recurring theme of eVorts to reduce school violence in Europe (Smith, 2003, p. 9). Another review Wnds that, although a plethora of programs to prevent or reduce bullyvictim problems have been marketed few... have been empirically evaluated (Ladd, 2005, p. 284) and a nationwide campaign from 1995 to 2000 to eliminate bullying in the Netherlands found mixed results but no timely and precise multilevel measurement of behavior within a longitudinal research design (Mooij, 2005). Lack of evaluation is particularly problematic, because of the diYculty of accurate assessment, as previously described. Children themselves do not put much faith in adult intervention. A study of 911-year olds in the Netherlands found that only 53 percent of bullied children told their teachers. When they were told, teachers usually tried to intervene, with half of them helping, a third making no diVerence, and a third making things worse (Fekkes, Pijper, & Verloove-Vanhorick, 2005). A US study of elementary school children found that, particularly for boys, telling a teacher sometimes backWred (Kochenderfer-Ladd & Skinner, 2002), and a British study of adolescents found that telling peers was much more helpful than telling adults (Smith & Shu, 2000). An Australian study found that almost half the 14-year-olds thought teachers did not care about bullying and that telling them was a bad idea. Further, 23% thought that most teachers made matters worse when they intervened (Rigby & Bagshaw, 2003). The wave of untested programs in the United States following Columbine did not slow down bullying. The U.S. Department of Justice reports an increase in bullying from 1999 to 2001 and no change from 2001 through 2003 (DeVoe, Peter, Noonan, Snyder, & Baum, 2005). Nor have eVorts in Europe necessarily succeeded. In separate prevention programs in Germany, England, and Belgium, bullying was reduced in primary schools but not in secondary schools (Hanewinkel, 2004; Smith, Sharp, Eslea, & Thompson, 2004; Stevens, Van ost, & De Bourdeaudhuij, 2004). Indeed, in the German high schools, bullying increased signiWcantly after intervention. In Brazil, high school students who thought their teachers would punish them for bullying were more likely to bully others than those who thought they would not be punished (DeSouza & Ribeiro, 2005). Some failures should be expected, especially since some success has occurred, including much less bullying in Ireland and Spain (OMoore & Minton, 2005; Ortega, Del Rey, & Mora-Merchn, 2004). Olweus led another eVort in Norway, a whole school approach designed to include entire schools, from educational leaders who set priorities, teachers who were intensely trained, to students who all discussed the need to stop bullies and protect victims. That eVort involved 450 schools, and reduced bully-victim problems by 3249 percent. Olweus reported, as other have, that intensity and thoroughness of eVort within each school is signiWcant, and that older children are less amenable to change than younger ones (Olweus, 2005). Olweus success is not easy to replicate. One reason is thought to be tepid support from teachers (Smith, Schneider, Smith, & Ananiadou, 2004, p. 66) and piecemeal eVorts from principals (Roland, 2000; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004). In general, summaries of bully

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

113

prevention eVorts report small successes and some failures (e.g. Rigby, 2002a; Smith et al., 2004; Smith & Pepler et al., 2004). Well-intentioned eVorts backWre if they are interpreted by stakeholders in unanticipated ways (Juvonen & Graham, 2004, p. 250). A program to prevent bullying among 5th grade students in Austin, Texas, improved awareness but increased bullying (Rosenbluth et al., 2004). A series of Canadian interventions found that teachers frequently complained that the very act of completing the questionnaires had increased the frequency of bullying (Pepler, Craig, OConnell, Atlas, & Charach, 2004, p. 136). Some failures have been interpreted as the early signs of success, in that students may become sensitized and therefore report more bullying. However, the sensitization hypothesis has been criticized as an easy explanation of failure, especially when projects that do not show sensitization are heralded as success (Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, & Voeten, 2005). Crucial aspects of eVective intervention Research on intervention has discovered some aspects that seem pivotal. One is the recognition that bullying is a social interaction, part of peer culture, a fact stressed by most European experts (Smith, 2003). This leads to a strategy of turning bystanders into defenders, an eVort that seems successful before puberty (Salmivalli et al., 2005). This social perspective may be one reason European interventions seem more successful than those in North America, where bullying and victimization are often considered as personal problems of individual youth rather than problems requiring a collective response (Juvonen et al., 2003, p. 1236). A bully-prevention team who tried to implement Olweus method in South Carolina are particularly critical of schools that grouped children who bullied in therapeutic groups that focused on anger management, skill-building, empathy-building, or the enhancement of bullies self-esteem. Although well-intentioned, such eVorts are likely to be counter-productive. Improving their self-esteem may help to create more conWdent bullies but likely will not decrease their bullying behavior. Anger management training is likely to be equally ineVective, as anger is not a common motivation for children who bully (Limber et al., 2004, pp. 6869). Another lesson from developmental research is that change is not usually linear, but occurs in Wts and starts, gains and losses, cascades and zigzags, over a long time period. For bullying, a lengthy massive campaign, involving all the stakeholders, may be necessary. Rather than gradual, dose-related improvement, resistance may collapse and bullying decline only after a certain threshold is crossed (Limber et al., 2004; Olweus, 2004; Smith & Sharp et al., 2004). For example, the SheYeld project in England began with 23 schools, each choosing which anti-bullying measures best suited them. Some did only a few (new landscaping of playgrounds was a common choice) and some involved all the students and teachers in multiple ways. Among the 23 schools, 14 reduced bullying but nine did not, with intensity of eVort correlated to improvement. On follow-up four years later, the only secondary school that continued to improve had a new principal who had been a teacherleader of an earlier whole school eVort, and was committed to halting bullies (Smith & Sharp et al., 2004). A renewed British eVort with schools that had earlier been involved again found disappointing results in half of them, with the school management and culture said to be the likely culprit (Jennifer & Shaughnessy, 2005).

114

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

A positive example of the need for sustained eVort comes from Kempele, Finland, where a multi-faceted intervention reduced the percentage of children victimized fairly often about 1 percent a year over 8 years (from 9% to 3%). Success was not immediate, and yearly data found an unexpected increase midway in the project (from 4% to 5%) before three more years of decline (Koivisto, 2004). Sustained eVort may be particularly elusive in certain nations. One expert suggests that some US teachers are currently overwhelmed by the demand for academic achievement. They have no energy for anti-bullying (Limber et al., 2004, p. 67). Scientists have not convinced them, or their superiors, that socio-emotional and cognitive development are closely linked and that bullying is reduced when teachers are trained in structured pedagogy, with clear disciplinary rules. This is known to researchers in education and child development. Many studies Wnd that high-achieving schools have less bullying and more prosocial behavior (e.g., Caprara et al., 2000; Galloway and Roland, 2004; Luisellii, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005; McEvoy and Welker, 2000). If teachers and policy makers do not know this research, they may ignore bully prevention in favor of academic achievement. In the US, some success at reducing bullying (measured scientiWcally, with control groups, blind assessments, repeated measures) has been attained with a structured curriculum, delivered by well-trained teachers to heterogeneous groups of elementary school students via discussions, stories, role-plays and other active learning methods. Among these successes are the Peacemakers Program (all 46th graders in several schools) (Shapiro, Burgoon, Welker, & Clough, 2002), S.S. Grin (all rejected or anxious children, about a fourth of whom were highly aggressive) (DeRosier & Marcus, 2005), Steps to Respect (all 3rd to 6th graders) (Frey et al., 2005), and Resolving ConXict Creatively (many classes in inner-city elementary schools) (Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998). Since developmental understanding has produced the successes just mentioned, and since researchers from many nations have discovered clues as to why one program succeeds and another fails, why do reports often includes words such as disappointing, discouraging, and insigniWcant? The answer may explain why publications have exploded and now may be contracting. One expert notes: Americans were shocked but fascinated . Sensationalist media coverage of high proWle acts soon gave way to a sort of acceptance, perhaps even apathy (Allen-Mears, 2005, p. vii). Consider again the clash between public understanding and scientiWc research. Researchers may have been energized and then discouraged by public sentiment, or inspired by Olweus and then disheartened that quick replication seems impossible. Yet scientists cannot forget that developmental change comes gradually and that multicausal behaviors do not disappear with any single eVort, no matter how well intentioned. Evaluation that compares rates of bullying before and after a few months of activity is foolhardy, reminiscent of laboratory experiments or political campaigns, rather than ecologically valid interventions. Could expectations for quick success erode scientiWc energy and wisdom? Let us look at one more example. The team who led the Texas project began their work a few weeks before Columbine occurred. The researchers proudly reported that local media covered project activities on 6 occasions (3 television, 1 radio, 2 print) and 6 state and national pieces were produced (1 television, 4 satellite broadcasts, 1 print) with interviews of students, teachers, principals, and project staV (Rosenbluth et al., 2004, p. 230). To their surprise, evaluation after 3 months and follow-up 5 months later found twice as many self-reported bullies as before the intervention began. In retrospect, the researchers noted that, because they wanted to

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

115

please the school leadership, they chose a curriculum that was designed to integrate easily into existing classroom lessons even though it had not been evaluated with students (Whitaker, Rosenbluth, Valle, & Sanchez, 2004, p. 330). Beyond choosing a curriculum for the wrong reasons, they now realize the importance of selecting well-designed and valid assessment tools (Rosenbluth et al., 2004, p. 232). These lessons are a poignant reminder for every scientist. Conclusion This last example illustrates a crucial point. The discovery that bullying is widespread and harmful has motivated many researchers and educators to describe, predict, and prevent it. Punctuating that research has been gunWre. Unfortunately, many school systems have avoided evaluation; many proponents of intervention have exaggerated prevalence (by reporting how many children have ever been victimized) or dramatized consequences (by highlighting homicides and suicides). Many legislatures and school systems throughout the world have vowed to eliminate bullying, but few understand the complexity of the problem. Since school shootings and adolescent suicides have declined (the US suicide rate for 1117-year olds decreased from 5.0 to 3.3 per 100,000 from 1992 to 2002), since many adults remember childhood conXicts that strengthened them, since few researchers have educated the public about the deW nitions, consequences, or causes of bullying, and since many have forgotten the slow progress of science, public attention has shifted. Many scientists believe that popular culture, particularly in the US, has become hostile, turning away from conW dence in science and in rational methods of thought as Donald Kennedy, editor-in-chief of Science, laments (2005, p. 165). Scientists need to redouble their eVorts. No need to be disappointed, or to apologize that success is not guaranteed. The ebb and Xow of popular attention, or the reality that some eVorts will fail, should not halt research. Given that nothing was known about bullying a few decades ago, remarkable progress has already occurred. As scientists proceed, they must educate non-scientists. When another shocking death occurs, a wave of media attention will arouse the public. Researchers must then ride that wave, as Olweus did twenty-four years ago, using the momentum to support sustained and comprehensive intervention with scientiWc evaluation. As a detailed account of many antibullying eVorts explains, there is work to be done to convince educators, parents, policymakers, and children themselves (Pepler, Smith, & Rigby, 2004, p. 321). Much has been accomplished; much remains. References
Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conXict creatively: evaluating the developmental eVects of a school-based violence prevention program in neighborhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 187213. *Adelmann, P. K. (2005). Social environmental factors and preteen health-related behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 3647. **Alikasifoglu, M., Erginoz, E., Uysal, O., Kaymak, D. A., & Ilter, O. (2002). Violent behaviour among Turkish high school students and correlates of physical Wghting. European Journal of Public Health, 14, 173177. Allen-Mears, P. (2005). Forward. In R. Benbenishty & R. A. Astor (Eds.), School violence in context (pp. viiix). New York: Oxford University Press.

116

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Alsaker, F. D. (2004). Bernese programme against victimization in kindergarten and elementary school. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 289306). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Amazon.com. (retrieved December 1, 2005). Books/bullies [Review]. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/searchhandle-url/102-7812128-9610529?url D index%3Dblended&Weld-keywords D bullies&Go.x D 8&Go.y D 10. Anderson, M., Kaufman, J., Simon, T. R., Barrios, L., Paulozzi, L., Ryan, G., et al. (2001). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 19941999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 21, 26952702. *Ando, M., Asakura, T., & Simons-Morton, B. (2005). Psychosocial inXuences on physical, verbal, and indirect bullying among Japanese early adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 268297. *Andreou, E., Vlachou, A., & Didaskalou, E. (2005). The roles of self-eYcacy, peer interactions and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy-practices. School Psychology International, 26, 545562. Archer, J. (2004). Sex diVerences in aggression in real-world settings: a meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291322. Archer, J., & Cote, S. (2005). Sex diVerences in aggressive behavior. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 425443). New York: Guilford Press. Augustine, M. C., Wilcox, P., Ousey, G. C., & Clayton, R. R. (2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent-based school victimization. Violence and Victims, 17, 233253. *Avils, M., Jos, M., & Monjas, C. I. (2005). Study of the impact of bullying within the obligatory secondary education, using the questionnaire CIMEI. Anales de Psicologa, 21, 2741. Baldry, A. (1998). Bullying among Italian middle school students: combining methods to understand aggressive behaviours and victimization. School Psychology International, 19, 361374. Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2000). Bullies and delinquents: personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 1731. *Baldry, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2005). Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 263284. Baltes, P.B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. (1998). Life-span theory in developmental psychology. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 10291143). New York: Wiley. Bauman, S., & Del Rio, A. (2006). Preservice teachers responses to bully scenarios: comparing physical, verbal, and relational bullying. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 219231. Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2004). Beyond the individual: the impact of ethnic context and classroom behavioral norms on victims adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 11591172. Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2003). Violence in schools: The view from Israel. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp. 317331). London: Routledge. Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context. New York: Oxford University Press. *Berg, I-M., Simonsson, B., & Ringqvist, I. (2005). Social background, aspects of lifestyle, body image, relations, school situation, and somatic and psychological symptoms in obese and overweight 15-year-old boys in a county in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 23, 95101. Bergeron, N., & Schneider, B. H. (2005). Explaining cross-national diVerences in peer-directed aggression: a quantitative synthesis. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 116137. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (second ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection. New York: Guilford Press. Boivin, M., Hymel, S., & Hodges, E. V. E. (2001). Toward a process view of peer rejection and harassment. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 265289). New York: Guilford Press. *Bollmer, J. M., Milich, R., Harris, J. J., & Maras, M. A. (2005). A friend in need: the role of friendship quality as a protective factor in peer victimization and bullying. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 701712. **Borg, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of bullying among primary and secondary schoolchildren. Educational Research, 41, 99116. Bond, L., Carlin, J. B., Thomas, L., Rubin, K., & Patton, G. (2001). Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323, 480484. Brainard, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (2005). The science of false memory. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Brame, B., Nagin, D. S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2001). Developmental trajectories of physical aggression from school entry to late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 503512.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

117

Broidy, L. M., Nagin, D. S., Tremblay, R. E., Bates, J. E., Brame, B., Dodge, K. A., et al. (2003). Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: a six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222245. Bukowski, W. M., & Sippola, L. K. (2001). Groups, individuals, and victimization: A view of the peer system. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 355377). New York: Guilford Press. *Camodeca, M., & Goossens, F. A. (2005). Childrens opinions on eVective strategies to cope with bullying: the importance of bullying role and perspective. Educational Research, 47, 93105. Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) News Online. (March 2005). Retrieved December 1, 2005 from www.cdc.ca/news/background/bullying/cyber_bullying.html. Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial foundation of childrens academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302306. Caspi, A., McClay, J., MoYtt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851854. *Cassidy, T., & Taylor, L. (2005). Coping and psychological distress as a function of the bully victim dichotomy in older children. Social Psychology of Education, 8, 249262. Castro, B., Veerman, J., Koops, W., Bosch, J., & Monshouwer, H. (2002). Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916934. *Cerezo, F., & Ato, M. (2005). Bullying in Spanish and English pupils: a sociometric perspective using the BULLS questionnaire. Educational Psychology, 25, 353367. *Chan, J. H. F., Myron, R., & Crawshaw, M. (2005). The eYcacy of non-anonymous measures of bullying. School Psychology International, 26, 443458. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Bukowski, W. M. (2000). Recent advances in the measurement of acceptance and rejection in the peer system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147163. Cillessen, A. H. N., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 102105. Cohen-Posey, Kate. (1995). How to handle bullies, teasers, and other meanies. Highland City, FL: Rainbow Books. Coie, J.D., & Dodge, J.A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 779-862). New York: Wiley. Cole, J. C. M., Cornell, D. G., & Sheras, P. (2006). IdentiWcation of school bullies by survey methods. Professional School Counseling, 9, 305313. Craig, W. M. (1998). The relationship among aggression types, depression, and anxiety in bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Personality and Individual DiVerences, 24, 123130. Craig, W. M., & Harel, Y. (2004). Bullying, physical Wghting, and victimization. In C. Currie, C. Roberts, A. Morgan, R. Smith, W. Settertobulte, & O. Samdal (Eds.), Young peoples health in context (pp. 133144). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. **Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2003). Identifying and targeting risk for involvement in bullying and victimization. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 577582. Craig, W. M., Pepler, D. J., Connolly, J., & Henderson, K. (2001). Developmental context of peer harassment in early adolescence: The role of puberty and the peer group. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 242262). New York: Guilford Press. Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710722. Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F., & Hickman, S. E. (2001). Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 196214). New York: Guilford Press. Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Burr, J. E., Cullerton-Sen, C., Jansen-Yeh, E., & Ralston, P. (2006). A longitudinal study of relational and physical aggression in preschool. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 254268. *Cullerton-Sen, C., & Crick, N. R. (2005). Understanding the eVects of physical and relational victimization: the utility of multiple perspectives in predicting social emotional adjustment. School Psychology Review, 34, 147160. Currie, C., Roberts, C., Morgan, A., Smith, R., Settertobulte, W., & Samdal, O. (Eds.). (2004). Young peoples health in context. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

118

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Dake, J. A., Price, J. H., Telljohann, S. K., & Funk, J. B. (2004). Principals perception and practice of school bullying prevention activities. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 372387. *de la Villa Moral, M. (2005). Socially constructed attitudes toward bullying in secondary school students. Anuario de Psicologa, 36, 6181. de Monchy, M., Pijl, S. J., & Zandberg, T. (2004). Discrepancies in judging social inclusion and bullying of pupils with behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 317330. *DeRosier, M. E., & Marcus, S. R. (2005). Building friendships and combating bullying: eVectiveness of S.S. GRIN at one year follow-up. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 140150. *DeSouza, E. R., & Ribeiro, J. (2005). Bullying and sexual harassment among Brazilian high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 10181038. DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Noonan, M., Snyder, T., & Baum, K. (2005). School crime and safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. *Dhami, M. K., Hoglund, W. L., & Leadbeater, B. J. (2005). Gender-linked risks for peer physical and relational victimization in the context of school-level poverty in Wrst grade. Social Development, 14, 532549. DiLalla, L. F. (2003). Behavior genetics of aggression in children: review and future directions. Developmental Review, 22, 593622. Dill, E. J., Vernberg, E. M., Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., & Gamm, B. K. (2004). Negative aVect in victimized children: the role of social withdrawal, peer rejection, and attitudes toward bullying. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32, 159173. Dishion, T. J., & Bullock, B. M. (2002). Parenting and adolescent problem behavior: An ecological analysis of the nurturance hypothesis. In J. G. Borkowski, S. L. Ramey, & M. Bristol-Power (Eds.), Parenting and the childs world: InXuences on academic, intellectual and social-emotional development (pp. 231249). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dodge, K. A., & Coie, C. D. (1987). Social-information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in childrens peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 11461158. Doll, B., Song, S., & Siemers, E. (2004). Classroom ecologies that support or discourage bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 161183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dulmus, C. N., Theriot, M. T., Sowers, K. M., & Blackburn, J. A. (2004). Student reports of peer bullying victimization in a rural school. Stress, Trauma, and Crisis: An International Journal, 7, 116. Duncan, R. D. (2004). The impact of family relationships on school bullies and their victims. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 227244). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299309. Elliot, D. S. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado. Eslea, M., Menesini, E., Morita, Y., OMoore, M., Mora-Merchn, J. A., Pereira, B., et al. (2003). Friendship and loneliness among bullies and victims: data from seven countries. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 7183. Eslea, M., & Mukhtar, K. (2000). Bullying and racism among Asian schoolchildren in Britain. Educational Research, 42, 207217. Eslea, M., & Rees, J. (2001). At what age are children most likely to be bullied at school? Aggressive Behavior, 27, 419429. Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer inXuences and psychosocial correlates. In R. A. GeVner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Eds.), Bullying behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions (pp. 123142). New York: Haworth Press. Espelage, D. L., Meban, S. E., & Swearer, S. M. (2004). Gender diVerences in bullying: Moving beyond mean level diVerences. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 1535). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Estell, D. B., Cairns, R. B., Farmer, T. W., & Cairns, B. D. (2002). Aggression in inner-city early elementary classrooms: individual and peer group conWgurations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 5276. ***Fekkes, M., Pijper, F. I. M., & Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P. (2005). Bullying: Who does what, when and where? Involvement of children, teachers and parents in bullying behavior. Health Education Research, 20, 8191. *Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R. K., Turner, H. A., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). Measuring poly-victimization using the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 12971312. Finnegan, R. A., Hodges, E. V. E., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Victimization by peers: associations with childrens reports of mother-child interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 10761086. Flynt, S. W., & Morton, R. C. (2004). Bullying and children with disabilities. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 330333.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

119

**Fonzi, A., Genta, M. L., Menesini, E., Bacchini, D., Bonino, S., & Costabile, A. (1999). Italy. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. F. Catalano, & P. T. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying: A crossnational perspective (pp. 140156). London: Routledge. *Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 313328. *Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstron, L. V. S., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: an experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479491. Galloway, D., & Roland, E. (2004). Is the direct approach to reducing bullying always the best? In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 3753). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Garbarino, J., & deLara, E. (2002). And words can hurt forever: How to protect adolescents from bullying, harassment, and emotional violence. New York: The Free Press. Gendreau, P. L., & Archer, J. (2005). Subtypes of aggression in humans and animals. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 2546). New York: Guilford Press. Gottheil, N. F., & Dubow, E. F. (2001). Tripartite belief models of bully and victim behavior. In R. A. GeVner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Eds.), Bullying behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions (pp. 2547). New York: Haworth Press. Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2001). An attributional approach to peer victimization. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 4972). New York: Guilford Press. *Haavet, O. R., Straand, J., & Hjortdahl, P. (2005). Do negative life experiences predict the health-care-seeking of adolescents? A study of 10th year students in Oslo, Norway. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, 128134. **Hanewinkel, R. (2004). Prevention of bullying in German schools: An evaluation of an anti-bullying approach. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 8197). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 6989. Haselager, G. J. T., Cillessen, A. H. N., Van Lieshout, C. F. M., Riksen-Walraven, J. M. A., & Hartup, W. W. (2002). Heterogeneity among peerrejected boys across middle childhood: developmental pathways of social behavior. Developmental Psychology, 38, 446456. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 41, 441455. Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective. Developmental Review, 19, 97132. Hawley, P. H., & Vaughn, B. (2003). Aggression and adaptation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 239244. Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 84108. Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., et al. (2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: distinct groups of at-risk youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 2949. Hodges, E., Boiven, M., Vitaro, F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1999). The power of friends: friendship as a factor in the cycle of victimization and maladjustment. Developmental Psychology, 35, 94101. Holmes, J. R., & Holmes-Lonergan, H. A. (2004). The bully in the family: Family inXuences on bullying. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 111135). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Holt, M. K., & Keyes, M. A. (2004). attitudes toward bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 121141). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hoover, J. H., Oliver, R., & Hazler, R. J. (1992). Bullying: perceptions of adolescent victims in the midwestern USA. School Psychology International, 13, 516. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581592. *Ivarsson, T., Broberg, A. G., & Arvidsson, T. (2005). Bullying in adolescence: psychiatric problems in victims and bullies as measured by the youth self report (YSR) and the depression self-rating scale (DSRS). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 59, 365373. Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of bystanders and victims to repetitive abuse experiences. Violence and Victims, 19, 239255.

120

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

*Jaln, M. J. D-A. (2005). The violence between adolescents and its prevention from school. Psicothema, 17, 549558. JeVrey, L. R., Miller, D., & Linn, M. (2001). Middle school bullying as a context for the development of passive observers to the victimization of others. In R. A. GeVner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Eds.), Bullying behavior: Current issues and research (pp. 143156). New York: Haworth Press. *Jennifer, D., & Shaughnessy, J. (2005). Promoting non-violence in schools: the role of cultural, organizational, and managerial factors. Educational and Child Psychology, 22, 5866. Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior. Psychological Review, 109, 2634. Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (2004). Research-based interventions on bullying. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 229255). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. A. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: the strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 12311237. Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S. (2001). Self-views versus peer perceptions of victim status among early adolescents. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 105124). New York: Guilford Press. Kagan, J., & Snidman, N. C. (2004). The long shadow of temperament. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Kaltiala-Heino, R., Rimpela, M., Marttunen, M., Rimpela, A., & Rantanen, P. (1999). Bullying, depression, and suicidal ideation in Finnish adolescents: school survey. British Medical Journal, 319, 348351. Kasen, S., Berenson, K., Cohen, P., & Johnson, J. G. (2004). The eVects of school climate on changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 187210). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social inXuences on young girls early problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 95113. Kennedy, D. (2005). Twilight for enlightenment? (Editorial). Science, 308, 165. Keisner, J., & Pastore, M. (2005). DiVerences in the relations between antisocial behavior and peer acceptance across contexts and across adolescence. Child Development, 76, 12781293. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Ladd, G. W. (2001). Variations in peer victimization: relations to childrens maladjustment. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 2548). New York: Guilford. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Skinner, K. (2002). Childrens coping strategies: moderators of the eVects of peer victimization? Developmental Psychology, 38, 267278. Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Wardrop, J. L. (2001). Chronicity and instability of childrens peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134151. Koivisto, M. (2004). A follow-up survey of anti-bullying interventions in the comprehensive schools of Kempele in 1990-1998. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 235249). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Kumpulainen, K., Rsnen, E., & Puura, K. (2001). Psychiatric disorders and the use of mental health services among children involved in bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 102110. Kupersmidt, J. B., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.). (2004). Childrens peer relations: From development to intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ladd, G. W. (2005). Childrens peer relations and social competence. New Haven: Yale University Press. Laursen, B., Finkelstein, B. D., & Betts, N. T. (2001). A developmental meta-analysis of peer conXict resolution. Developmental Review, 21, 423449. Leinhardt, A. M., & Willert, H. J. (2002). Involving stakeholders in resolving school violence. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 86(631), 3243. Li, Qing. (2006). Cyberbullying in schools: a research of gender diVerences. School Psychology International, 27, 157170. Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B., & Vlerx, V. (2004). Implementation of the Olweus bullying prevention program in the Southeastern United States. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 5579). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lopez, C., & DuBois, D. L. (2005). Peer victimization and rejection: investigation of an integrative model of eVects on emotional, behavioral, and academic adjustment in early adolescence. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 2536. Lorenz, K. (1969). On aggression. London: Methuen. *Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., & Feinberg, A. B. (2005). Whole school positive behavior support: eVect on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25, 183198.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

121

Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Maccoby, E. E. (2000). Parenting and its eVects on children: on reading and misreading behavior genetics. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 127. Macmillan, R., & Hagan, J. (2004). Violence in the transition to adulthood: adolescent victimization, education, and socioeconomic attainment in later life. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14, 127158. Mahady Wilton, M. M., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2000). Emotional regulation and display in classroom victims of bullying: characteristic expressions of aVect, coping styles, and relevant contextual factors. Social Development, 9, 226245. Marsh, H. W., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Finger, L. (2004). In the looking glass: A reciprocal eVect model elucidating the complex nature of bullying, psychological determinants, and the central role of self concept. In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 63109). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. *Martn, F. D. F., Martnez, M. d. C. P., & Tirado, J. L. A. (2005). Design, implementation and evaluation of a bullying prevention pilot program. Revista Mexicana de Psicologa, 22, 375384. McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000). Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: a critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 130140. Media Awareness. (n.d.). Challenging cyber bullying. Retrieved December 1, 2005 from http://www.mediaawareness.ca/ english/resources/special_initiatives/wa_resources/wa_shared/backgrounders_challenge_cyber_bullying.cfm. Mellor, A. (1999). Scotland. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. F. Catalano, & P. T. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 91111). London: Routledge. Menesini, E., Eslea, M., Smith, P. K., Genta, M. L., Giannetti, E., Fonzi, A., et al. (1997). Cross-national comparisons of childrens attitudes toward bully-victim problems in school. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 245257. Menesini, E., Melan, E., & Pignatti, B. (2000). Interaction style of bullies and victims observed in a competitive and a cooperative setting. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 161, 261281. Menesini, E., & Modiano, R. (2003). A multi-faceted reality: A report from Italy. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp. 153168). London: Routledge. Miller, J. (2005). ReXecting on anothers mind. Science, 308, 945947. MoYtt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex diVerences in antisocial behavior: conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. *Monks, C. P., Smith, P. K., & Swettenham, J. (2005). Psychological correlates of peer victimisation in preschool: social cognitive skills, executive function and attachment proWles. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 571588. *Mooij, T. (2005). National campaign eVect on secondary pupils bullying and violence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 489511. **Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K., & Taki, M. (1999). Japan. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. F. Catalano, & P. T. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 309323). London: Routledge. Mouttapa, M., Valenta, T., Gallaher, P., Rohrbach, L. A., & Unger, J. B. (2004). Social network predictors of bullying and victimization. Adolescence, 39, 315335. Nansel, T. R., & Overpeck, M. D. (2003). Operationally deWning bullying (Reply). Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 157, 11351136. **Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behavior among U.S. youth: prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 20942100. Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M. D., Saluja, G., & Ruan, W. J. (2004). Cross-national consistency in the relationship between bullying behaviors and psychosocial adjustment. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 158, 730736. Nesdale, D., & Naito, M. (2005). Individualism-collectivism and the attitudes to school bullying of Japanese and Australian students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 537556. *Newman, M. L., Holden, G. W., & Delville, Y. (2005). Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 343357. Nguy, L., & Hunt, C. J. (2004). Ethnicity and bullying: a study of Australian high school students. Educational and Child Psychology, 21, 7894. Nishina, A. (2004). A theoretical review of bullying: can it be eliminated? In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 3562). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435450.

122

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M. R. (2005). Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will make me sick: The psychosocial, somatic, and scholastic consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 3748. *Nordhagen, R., Neisen, A., Stigum, H., & Kohler, L. (2005). Parental reported bullying among Nordic children. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 31, 693701. Norwich, B., & Kelly, N. (2004). Pupils views on inclusion: moderate learning diYculties and bullying in mainstream and special schools. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 4365. OConnor, T. G. (2002). The eVects of parenting reconsidered: Wndings, challenges, and applications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 555572. Okayasu, T., & Takayama, I. (2004). Implementation and evaluation of a bullying prevention program focused on educational movements in junior high school. Japanese Journal of Counseling Science, 37, 155167. Olweus, D. (1973). Hackkycklingar och oversittare. Forskning om skolmobbning. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell. Olweus, D. (1978). Aggression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Olweus, D. (1986). Mobbningvad vi vet och vad vi kan gora. Stockholm: Libe Forlag. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Olweus, D. (1999). Sweden. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. F. Catalano, & P. T. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 827). London: Routledge. Olweus, D. (2001). Peer harassment: A critical analysis and some important issues. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 320). New York: Guilford Press. Olweus, D. (2004). The Olweus bullying prevention programme: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 1336). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Olweus, D. (2005). A useful evaluation design, and eVects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law. [Special issue: Working with aggression and violence: Assessment, prevention and treatment], 11, 389402. *OMoore, A. M., & Minton, S. J. (2005). Evaluation of the eVectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 609622. Ono, T., & Hasegawa, Y. (2001). Physical stereotypes of ijime victims. Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 8794. Ortega, R., Del Rey, R., & Mora-Merchn, J. A. (2004). SAVE model: An anti-bullying intervention in Spain. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 167 185). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Ortega, R., & Monks, C. (2005). UnjustiWed aggression among preschoolers. Psicothemia, 17, 453458. Owens, L., Slee, P., & Shute, R. (2001). Victimatization among teenage girls: What can be done about indirect harassment? In J. Juvonen, & S. Graham (Eds.) Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 215241). New York: Guilford Press. *Pekel-Uludagli, N., & Uanok, Z. (2005). Loneliness, academic achievement and types of bullying behavior according to sociometric status in bully/victim groups. Trk Psikoloji Dergisi, 20, 7795. Pellegrini, A. D. (2001a). The role of dominance and bullying in the development of early heterosexual relationships. In R. A. GeVner, M. Loring, & C. Young (Eds.), Bullying behavior: Current issues, research, and interventions (pp. 6273). New York: Haworth Press. Pellegrini, A. D. (2001b). Sampling instances of victimization in middle school. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and the victimized (pp. 125144). New York: Guilford Press. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary to secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 259280. Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2004). Part of the solution and part of the problem: The role of peers in bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 107117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., OConnell, P., Atlas, R., & Charach, A. (2004). Making a diVerence in bullying: Evaluation of a systematic school-based programme in Canada. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125139). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., & Roberts, W. (1998). Playground observation of aggressive and non-aggressive children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 5576.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

123

Pepler, D. J., Smith, P. K., & Rigby, K. (2004). Looking back and looking forward: Implications for making interventions work eVectively. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 307324). Cambridge, England: University Press. Pereira, G., Mendonca, D., Neto, C., Valente, L., & Smith, P. K. (2004). Bullying in Portuguese schools. School Psychology International, 25, 241254. *Perren, S., & Hornung, R. (2005). Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims and perpetrators family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of PsychologySchweizerische Zeitschrift fr PsychologieRevue Suisse de Psychologie, 64, 5164. Perry, D. G., Hodges, E. V. E., & Egan, S. K. (2001). Determinants of chronic victimization by peers: A review and new model of family inXuence. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 73104). New York: Guilford Press. Picket, W., Schmid, H., Boyce, W., Simpson, K., Scheidt, P. C., Mazur, J., et al. (2002). Multiple risk behavior and injury: an international analysis of young people. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 786793. *Piek, J. P., Barrett, N. C., Allen, L. S. R., Jones, A., & Louise, M. (2005). The relationship between bullying and self-worth in children with movement coordination problems. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 453463. *Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and homophobic verbal content: the Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513528. *Poynting, S., & Donaldson, M. (2005). Snakes and leaders: hegemonic masculinity in ruling-class boys boarding schools. Men and Masculinities, 7, 325346. Prinstein, M. J., Cheah, C. S. L., & Guyer, A. E. (2005). Peer victimization, cue interpretation and internalizing symptoms: preliminary concurrent and longitudinal Wndings for children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 1124. Putallaz, M., & Bierman, K. (2004). Aggression, antisocial behavior, and violence among girls. New York: Guilford Press. Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adults: a review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 95113. Ree, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental inXuences on antisocial behavior: a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 490529. Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: A developmental analysis and the Oregon model for intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). Creating school environments that deter antisocial behavior in youth. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 549559. Rigby, K. (2002a). A meta-evaluation of methods and approaches to reducing bullying in pre-schools and in early primary schools in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Attorney-Generals Department. Rigby, K. (2002b). New perspectives on bullying. London: Jessica Kingsley. Rigby, K. (2003). Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 583590. *Rigby, K. (2005). Why do some children bully at school? The contributions of negative attitudes towards victims and the perceived expectations of friends, parents and teachers. School Psychology International, 26, 147161. Rigby, K., & Bagshaw, D. (2003). Prospects of adolescent students collaborating with teachers in addressing issues of bullying and conXict in schools. Educational Psychology, 23, 535546. Rigby, K., & Slee, P. (1999). Australia. In P. K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. F. Catalano, & P. T. Slee (Eds.), The nature of school bullying (pp. 324329). London: Routledge. Rivers, I. (2001). Retrospective reports of school bullying: stability of recall and its implications for research. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 129141. Rivers, I. (2004). Recollections of bullying at school and their long-term implication for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Crisis, 25, 169175. Roland, E. (2000). Bullying in school: three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years. Aggressive Behavior, 26, 135143. Rodkin, P. C. (2004). Peer ecologies of aggression and bullying. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 87106). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Romain, T., & Verick, E. (1997). Bullies are a pain in the brain. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing. Rose, A. J., Swenson, L. P., & Waller, E. M. (2004). Overt and relational aggression and perceived popularity: developmental di Verences in concurrent and prospective relations. Developmental Psychology, 40, 378387.

124

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Rosenbluth, B., Whitaker, D. J., Sanchez, E., & Valle, L. A. (2004). The Expect Respect project: preventing bullying and sexual harassment in U.S. elementary schools. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211233). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Salmivalli, C. (2001). Group view on victimization: Empirical Wndings and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398419). New York: Guilford Press. Salmivalli, C. (2002). Is there an age decline in victimization by peers at school? Educational Research, 44, 269277. Salmivalli, C., & Issacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness and childrens self and peer perceptions. Child Development, 76, 11611171. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti-bullying intervention: implementation and outcome. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 465487. Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Voeten, M., & Sinisammal, M. (2004). Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti-bullying intervention. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 251273). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bullyvictims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 3044. Sanders, C. E. (2004). What is bullying? In C. E. Sanders & G. D. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 116). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. *Savage, R. (2005). Friendship and bullying patterns in children attending a language base in a mainstream school. Educational Psychology in Practice, 21, 2336. *Schfer, M., Korn, S., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2005). Bullying roles in changing contexts: the stability of victim and bully roles from primary to secondary school. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 323335. Schfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchn, J. A., & Singer, M. M. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 379394. Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group. Developmental Psychology, 36, 646662. Schwartz, D., Farver, J. M., Chang, L., & Lee-Shin, Y. (2002). Victimization in South Korean childrens peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 113125. Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H. (2001). The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147174). New York: Guilford Press. Shapiro, J. P., Burgoon, J. D., Welker, C. J., & Clough, J. B. (2002). Evaluation of the Peacemakers Program: schoolbased violence prevention for students in grades four through eight. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 87100. Shapiro, R. M., & Jankowski, M. A. (2005). Bullies, tyrants, and impossible people. New York: Crown Business. Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349363. Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735747. *Skues, J. L., Cunningham, E. G., & Pokharel, T. (2005). The inXuence of bullying behaviours on sense of school connectedness, motivation and self-esteem. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 15, 1726. Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The eVectiveness of whole school anti-bullying programs: a synthesis of evaluation research. School Psychology Review, 33, 547560. Smith, P. K. (2003). Violence in schools: An overview. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools: The response in Europe (pp. 114). London: RoutledgeFalmer. Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefoogle, A. P. D. (2002). DeWnitions of bullying: a comparison of terms used, and age and gender diVerences in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 11191133. Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (2004). Preface. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. xviixviii). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying: Insights and perspectives. London: Routledge. Smith, P. K., Sharp, S., Eslea, M., & Thompson, D. (2004). England: The SheYeld Project. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 99124). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

125

Smith, P. K., & Shu, S. (2000). What good schools can do about bullying: Wndings from a survey in English schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 7, 193212. Smith, P. K., Shu, S., & Madsen, K. (2001). Characteristics of victims of school bullying: Developmental changes in coping strategies and skills. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 332351). New York: Guilford Press. Smith, P. K., Talamelli, L., Cowie, H., Naylor, P., & Chauhan, P. (2004). ProWles of non-victims, escaped victims, continuing victims, and new victims of school bullying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 565581. Smokowski, P. R., & Kopasz, K. H. (2005). Bullying in school: an overview of types, eVects, family characteristics, and intervention strategies. Children & Schools, 27, 101110. Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 239268. *Soresi, S., Nota, L., & Ferrari, L. (2005). Counseling for adolescents and children at-risk in Italy. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 27, 249265. Stevens, V., Van ost, P., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2004). Interventions against bullying in Flemish schools: Programme development and evaluation. In P. K. Smith, D. Pepler, & K. Rigby (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 141165). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. *Storch, E. A., Heidgerken, A. D., & Adkins, J. W. (2005). Peer victimization and the development of obsessivecompulsive disorder in adolescence. Depression and Anxiety, 21, 4144. Suomi, S. J. (2005). Genetic and environmental factors inXuencing the expression of impulsive aggression and serotonergic functioning in rhesus monkeys. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 6382). New York: Guilford Press. Tapper, K., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). Victim and peer group responses to diVerent forms of aggression among primary school children. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 238253. Tavris, C. (2002). Are girls really as mean as books say they are? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49, B7B9. Thanzami, V. L., & Archer, J. (2005). Beliefs about aggression in British students from individualistic and collectivist cultures. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 350358. *Theriot, M. T., Dulmus, C. N., Sowers, K. M., & Johnson, T. K. (2005). Factors relating to self-identiWcation among bullying victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 979994. Tisak, M. S., & Tisak, J. (1996). My siblings but not my friends keeper: reasoning about responses to aggressive acts. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16, 324339. *Toblin, R. L., Schwartz, D., & Gorman, A. H. (2005). Social-cognitive and behavioral attributes of aggressive victims of bullying. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 329346. Tremblay, R. E., Hartup, W. W., & Archer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Developmental origins of aggression. New York: Guilford Press. Tremblay, R. E., & Nagin, D. S. (2005). The developmental origins of physical aggression in humans. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 83106). New York: Guilford Press. Troop-Gordon, W., & Ladd, G. W. (2005). Trajectories of peer victimization and perceptions of the self and schoolmates: precursors to internalizing and externalizing problems. Child Development, 76, 10721091. *Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy, P., & Sacco, F. C. (2005). A developmental approach to mentalizing communities: II. The Peaceful Schools experiment. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 69, 282304. Underwood, M. K. (2003). Social aggression among girls. New York: Guilford Press. *Unnever, J. D. (2005). Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: are they distinct groups? Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153171. Unnever, J. D., & Cornell, D. G. (2004). Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggressive Behavior, 30, 373388. Vaillancourt, T. (2005). Indirect aggression among humans. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 158177). New York: Guilford Press. Van Goozen, S. H. M. (2005). Hormones and the developmental origins of aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 281306). New York: Guilford Press. *Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: a comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672682. Vitaro, F., & Brendgen, M. (2005). Proactive and reactive aggression. In R. E. Tremblay, W. W. Hartup, & J. Archer (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 178201). New York: Guilford Press.

126

K. Stassen Berger / Developmental Review 27 (2007) 90126

Vossekuil, B., Fein, R. A., Reddy, M., Borum, R., & Modzeleski, W. (2002). The Wnal report and Wndings of the safe school initiative: implications for the prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, Dc: U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education. Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect Respect: A school-based intervention to promote awareness and eVective responses to bullying and sex harassment. In D. L. Espelage & S. M. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools (pp. 327350). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. **Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bully/victim problem in junior/middle and secondary school. Educational Research, 35, 325. *Williams, T., Connolly, J., & Pepler, D. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 471482. Wolke, D., & Samara, M. M. (2004). Bullied by siblings: association with peer victimisation and behaviour problems in Israeli lower secondary school children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 10151029. *Woods, S., & White, E. (2005). The association between bullying behaviour, arousal levels and behaviour problems. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 381395. Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 135155. *Xiao-Qi, H., Jia-Xiu, Z., & Lan-Ting, G. (2005). Bully in primary school and its impact on psychosocial health. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 19, 676678. Xie, H., Swift, D. J., Cairns, B. D., & Cairns, R. B. (2002). Aggressive behavior in social interaction: a narrative analysis of interpersonal conXicts during early adolescence. Social Development, 11, 205224. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2004). Online aggressor/targets, aggressors, and targets: a comparison of associated youth characteristics. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 45, 13081316. Yu, St. M., Huang, Z. J., & Schwalberg, R. H. (2003). Acculturation and the health and well-being of U.S. immigrant adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33, 479488. Zhou, Z., Peverly, S. T., Xin, T., Huang, A. S., & Wang, W. (2003). School adjustment of Wrst generation Chinese-American adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 7184.

Você também pode gostar