![Research on School Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here? [Mini-Series]](http://data.docslib.org/img/f462625c0f645e5cf3b62e0ee55efa96-1.webp)
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Educational Psychology Papers and Publications Educational Psychology, Department of
2003
Research on School Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here? [Mini-Series]
Dorothy L. Espelage University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, [email protected]
Susan M. Swearer Napolitano University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers
Part of the Educational Psychology Commons
Espelage, Dorothy L. and Swearer Napolitano, Susan M., "Research on School Bullying and Victimization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go from Here? [Mini-Series]" (2003). Educational Psychology Papers and Publications. 154. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/edpsychpapers/154
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Educational Psychology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Educational Psychology Papers and Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Copyright 2003, National Association of School Psychologists. Used by permission.
School P,ychol(J~Y Review. 2003, Voluille 12. No.3, pp. :lbS-.1H I MINI--SERIES
Research on School Bullying and Victiluization: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go From Here?
Dorothy L. Espelage Unit1ersity of lilinuis. Urbana,Champaign
Susan M. Swearer Uni~Nrsity of Nebrmka,Lincoln
Abstract. This special i,sue nn bullying and victimization in Schooll',I'rc!l%gr Rel'ieu' highlights current research elTol1:> in American schools on bullying and peer victimization. and how this research can inform prevention and intervention planning. nlis introductory article provides a brief overview of several major in sights gained over the last decade from research on bullying in school-aged youth and sets the stage for the special issue. Research on psychosOl:ial currelates in bullying behaviors is reviewed and four insights that provide directions fur future research are derived. The contributing authors in the special i,sue augment these insights by examining the intluence of the peer ecology on bullying (Rodkin & Hodges. 20031. using longitudinal and multivariate melhodologies in bullying re search (Long & Pellegrini. 20(3). assessing the climales within the schuol where bullying typically occurs (letT. Power. Cosligan. & Manz. 20m I. exploring imple mentation issues ofschool-wide bullying prevention programming (Orpinas. Home. & Staniszewski. 2003 I. reviewing laws and policies lo address bullying (Limher & Small. 20(3), and challenging researchers to reach a consensus on bullying research (Furlong. Morrison. & Greif. 20m).
School bullying among children and ado mates (Olweus, 1993). Following these events. lescents has been the focus of many interna the Ministry of Education in Norway launched tional studies over the last 30 years. In his semi a national campaign against bullying in which nal research, Norwegian scholar Daniel a prevention program was implemented in ev Olweus ( 1972) coined bullying a" "mobbing." ery primary and secondary school. Indeed. and defined it as an individual or a group of many other countries have recognized bully individuals harassing, tcasing. or pestering ing as a serious concern. including England. another person. However, it was not until 1982 Italy. Canada. Japan. the United States. and that school officials in Norway turned their Australia. to name a few. attention to school bullying, and did so only Recent events in the United States raise after three 14-year-old boys committed suicide some issues about the transportability of inter as a result of extreme harassment from class- national findings to the culture of American
Address correspondcnce rcgarding this article to Dorothy L. Espelagc. Ph.D.. Derallmcnt of Educational Psychology. University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. College of Education. 226 Educatiun Building. 1310 South Sixth Street. Champaign. lL 61820-6lJ90; E-mail: [email protected].
l65 School P.,ycholof4Y Review. 2UlU. Volume .11. No. J
schools. For example. the recent concern over The three aforementioned articles on school shootings in the United States has led bullying publishetl in School Psychology Re to many schools to adopt "zero-tolerance" poli view have set the stage for this special issue cies for aggressive behavior. including bully on bullying research. In 1994. Batsche and ing. However. what happens to these youth Knoff stated that bullying was a pervasive who arc suspended or expelled for aggressive problem and urged researchers and practitio behavior"? Compulsory education mandates ners to consider bullying as a pervasive form that these slUdents receive a "free and appro of violence. They encouraged school person priate education." Thus. these students return nel and researchers to examine the relation to school. TIle United States has a history of ship between school climate. academic perfor legislative mandates that affect education for mance. and bullying. Five years later. Lcffantl all stutlents in this country. Additionally. the colleagues tackled the tlifficult issue of accu U.S. government has intluenced etlucationul rate assessment of bullies and victims (LetT et policies and practices (i.e.. DARE campaign). al.. 1999). They found that teachers more ac In fall 2003. the U.S. Department of Health curately identified elementary versus middle anti Human Services is launching a multiyear school bullies and victims and that multiple national bullying public awareness and preven teacher reports increased accurate itlentifica tion campaign. What might be the effect ofthis tion of bullies and victims. Finally. they found public awareness campaign on antibullying low concordance between peer and teacher policies in American schools'! nominations; teachers identified less than half of peer-nominated bullies and victims. Two Rationale for this Special Issue years later. Leff ct al. (2001) reviewetl five In the past 3 years several special issues model programs designed to reduce aggression tlevoted to resem'ch on bullying have been pub in schools. The tive programs reviewetl met lished in national anti international journals Chambless and Hollon's (1998) criteria for (Elias & Zins. Eds.. Journal ofApplied School "possibly etlicacious" programs and were: (a) Psychology. 2003; School Psychologv llltema Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategics tiol/ul. 2000; GeiTner & Loring. Eds.. JounUlI (PATHS). (b) Second Step. (c) First Step to Id' EmoTiol/al Abuse. 200 I; and Smith & Brian. Success. (d) Anger Coping Program. and (e) Etls.. Aggressive Behlll'iOl; 20{X)). It is surpris Brain Power Program. LetT anti colleagues ing that only four special issues have been de noted that missing from many of these pro voted to this topic when schools are increasingly grams was a focus 011 relational aggression. being mandated to develop antibullying policies. Given the relationship between relational and Therefore. given the dearth of articles on bully overl aggression. this omission has serious ing and victimization in the.ioumal that has one implications for effectively treating all forms of the largest school personnel readerships. it is of aggression. including hullying, timely for a special issue on research on bully In addition to school psychologists. de ing and victimization to appear in School Psy velopmental psychologists in the U.S. have chology ReI'iew. [n a Psych[NFO search of ar also studied peer victimization and its tletri ticles on bullying and victimization from 1980 mental effects for many years (see Juvonen & to the present in School P.I'ydlO/ogv Review. Graham. 2001 for a review). Similarly. physi only four articles that focused on bullying and cal aggression anti more extreme forms of vio victimization were found. Of these four ar lence have been investigated for decades in the ticles. only three specifically focused on bul United States by sociologists, psychologists, lies and victims (Batsdle & Knotf. 1994; Lett". and criminologists (e.g.. Dishion. French. & Kupersmidt. Patterson. & Power. 1999; Lei"'. Pallerson. 1995: Goldstein. 19lJ4: Loeber & Power. ManL. Costigan. & Nabors. 20(1). This Stollthamer-Loeber. [998). Unfortunately. special issue tills a gap in the literature and will fewer studies have focused exclusively on bul be a critical resource for school psychologists lying. so scholars and clinicians have usetl fintl and etlucators working in our nation's schools. ings from international studies to guide pre- Res(·arch on School Bullying
vention and intervention efforts in the United by the U.S. Secret Service (VossekuiL Fein. States. Despite our nation's slow start. many Reddy. Borum. & Modzeleski. 2(02). In this active research programs on bullying are mak interview-based investigation of the friends. ing significant advances in our under~tanding families. and neighbors nf 41 school shooter~ of the dynamics of bullying, how it emerges. (between 1l)74-2000l. a startling finding and how to effectively intervene. This article emerged. Attempting to uncover familial or is intended to provide the foundation for the psychological profiles that could be helpful in special issue on bullying and peer victimiza identifying future school shooters. the Secret tion in School Psychology Rel'iel\' by highlight Service discovered one commonality among ing some of the major findings that have re the shooters: 71 % had been targets of a bully. cently emerged from studies conducted in Although school violence has decreased over American schools. However. there continue to the past 4 years (U.S. Department of Health & be some areas dominated hy intemational re Human Services. 20(1). this report still raises search and this research is also included. Over concern about how students treat each other all. the goal of this special issue is to highlight and suggests that schools should focus on mak how extant theoretical and empirical research can ing schools Soafer places where £II/ students feel guide bullying prevention and intervention ef protected and valued and that the consequences forts in schools. An additional goal is to empha of neglecting psychosocial functioning may size the questions that remain unanswered about have dire results. the dynamics of bullying in American schools. It is therefore nol surprising that many and to provide directions for future research. state legislatures (e.g.. Wisconsin. Illinois. Colorado) have mandated that schools adopt a Incidence of Bullying in Schools bully policy and/or bully prevention plan to The exact prevalence of bullying is dif address this significant problem (see Furlong ticult to generate as definitions and measures et al.. 2003: Limber & SmaiL 20(3). As such. used across studies vary tremendously. How teachers. school administrators. social work ever. evidence from several large-scale stud ers. counselors. and concerned parents are at ies in midwestern and southeastern U.S. tempting 10 adhere to state mandates. often schools suggests that bullying behavior is quite within short time frames. to create bully poli common (Espelage. BoswOIth. & Simon. 2000: cies and to design. implement. and evaluate Hoover. Oliver, & Hazier. 1992: Limber et al.. bully prevention programs. Although research 1997). In a study ofjunior high and high school has consistently highlighted specitic compo students from midwestem towns. Hw"i- reported nents important for bullying prevention pro having observed bullying and 77o/r. reported grams (e.g., teacher training. imp0l1ance of being a victim of bullying during their school peer grouP). this information is not always years (Hoover et aI., 1992). Similarly. 25(lc of readily accessible to practitioners. Thus. this students in Grades 4 through 6 admitted to special issue attempts to lessen the sciencc bullying another student with some regularity practice gap. in the 3 months preceding the study (Limber Insights Gained et al.. 1997). A more recent study in the }our I/al of the Americal/ Medical Associatiol/ To this end. this special issue highlights (Nansel et al.. 200 I) demonstrated the serious current research efforts in American schools ness of bullying in schools. These authors sur on bullying and peer victimization, and links veyed 15,686 ~tudents in Grades 6 through 10 this research to prevcntion and intervention across the U.S. and found that a total of29.9% planning. A brief overview of several major of the sample reported frequent involvement insights gained over the last decade in hully in bullying. with 13% as a bully. 10.6% as a ing research is prcsented. The insights are not victim. and 6% as a bully-victim. intended to be an exhamtive list. but are in Further support for the need to address tended to set the stage for the special issue and bullying was provided by a report conducted future research. School P~ychology Review, 2UUI, Voluml" 32, No, j
Insight l: Defining and Assessing ing has been viewed as proacti ve aggression Bullying and Peer Victimization are because bullies often seek out their targets with Complex Tasks lillie provocation and do so for extended peri ods of time. Defining Bullying Others have distinguished bullying from Perhaps, the most challenging aspect of other forms of aggression using the typology bullying prevention programming is real:hing ofdireCI versus indirect aggression (Bjorkqvist. a l:onsensus on a definition ofbullying. A num Lagerspetz. & Kaukiainen. 1992; Olweus, ber of definitions exist in the literature: how 1993) or overt versus coven aggression (Crick. ever. although these conceptualizations differ 1995; Crick. Casas. & Ku. 19(9). Direct (overt) semantically. many of them have one similar aggression includes physical fighting (e.g.. ity: Bullring is (/ suhset (l(aggress;ol1 (Dodge. pushing, shoving, kicking) and verbal threat ItJl)l: Olweus, 1993: Rivers & Smith. 1994: ening behavior (e.g.. name-calling. teasing) Smith & Thompson, 1991 ). The following deti that is face-to-face confrontation: whereas in nitions are commonly found in the literature: direct aggression (covert) includes a third-party in which verhal aggression is at:t:olllplished A per,on i, heing hullied ",.. hen he or ~he i, expo,ed. repeatedly over time. 10 negative through rumor spreading and name-calling. actions on the part of one or more other stu Relational aggression has emerged in the dellls, ,Olweus. IlJlJJ. p, 9) literature as another form ofaggression or bul A student is heing hullied nrpicked nn when lying. Coined by Nit:ki Cril:k and wlleagucs. another sludent says nasty and unpleasant relational aggression is defined as aggression thill!!, 10 him or her. It i, al,o bullvin~ when a directed at damaging a relationship. Put another slud~nt is hit. kicked. threateneci, k;-cked in way. in relational aggression. relationships are side a rolllll. senl nasty noll'S. and when no ever talks til him, (Smith & Sharp. 1994. p, 1) used as a means to haml (Crick & Grotpeter. IY(6). For example. relationally aggressive Bullying is longstanding violence, physical youth might threaten to exclude a friend from or mental. conducled bv an indi vidual or group and directed again;t an individual who a social activity if he or she does not go along is no1 able to defend himself in Ihe actual with the aggressor, Students might also spread ~illlation. (Roland. 1989. p. 143) rumors about a close peer as a way of retaliat Thus, bullying is defined in the literature as a ing when their target did not go along \vith the repeated behavior (including both verbal and crowd. To date. relational aggression is defined physical behaviors) that occurs over time in a and assessed as verbal aggression: however. it relationship chm'acterized by ml imbalance of is also plausible that some students damage strength and power (O!weus. 1994). Given this friendships through physical force or threat of imbalance of strength and power. it is difficult physil:al forl:e. for the person being bullied to defend himselfor In summary. despite their disparate na herself. ture, most definitions of bullying include the Researchers who study bullying can notion that bullying includes both physical anJ '"borrow" from the aggression literature as they verbal aggression. which is a systematic. on struggk to ddine and assess bullying behav going set of behavior instigated by an indi iors. One well-accepted typology ofaggression vidual or a group of individuals who are at includes Dodge's ( 1991) categorization ofpro tempting to gain power, prestige. or goods. active versus reactive aggression. Proactive or Tadics might also be direded at the threat of instrumental aggression includes behavior that withdrawal of a friendship. is directed a1 a victim to obtain a desired out Assessment of BuUying and come, such as gaining propelty. power. or af Victimization filiation. In l:ontrasL reactive aggression is di nxted at the victim as a result of an aversive Researchers, school personnel. and state event thaI elicited anger or frustration on the boards of cdul: 3bIJ i{e'blrch on School Bullying assess bullying and victimization from mul research is whether students are provided with tiple soun.:es (e.g.. students. parents. teachers) a definition of bullying when responding to to design programs that are applicable to their measures designed to assess bullying. Although school ecology. It is critical to discuss the vari some argue that a definition should be provided ous types of assessment methods used to esti (Solberg & 01weus, 20(3), nthers argue the mate the incidence of bullying and to identify definition might "prime" a student against re bullies. victims. bully-victims. and bystanders sponding honestly (Espelage et al.. 200 I ). This (Solberg & Olweus. 2003). These methods in definitional issue is fundamentally related to clude: self-report. peer nominations. teacher accurate assessment of hullying and to con nominations. and behavioral observations. clusions researchers make about this cOTllplex Self-report scales and surveys. Self dynamic (Solberg & Olweus. 20(3). report is often the preferred method of assess Peer and teacher nomination tasks. ment for research purposes and for school per Nomination procedures are sometimes used to sonnel to gather information about bullying in identify students for targeted interventions. but their school. Examples can be found through are predominantly utilized for research pur out the extant literature (Espelage. Bosworth. poses because of the legal and ethical issues & Simon. 200 I: Olweus. 1989: Rigby & Slee. surrounding gathering student names. FUl1her 1999). A common self-report bullying scale more. they are easier to use in elementary involves asking students directly (under assur schools (as compared to middle and high ance of confidentiality) how often they en school) because teachers have more interac gaged in certain behaviors over a specified time tion with students and students do not change period (e.g.. past 30 days). For example. the classes. At the elementary school level. teach Un iversity of III inoi s Aggression scales ers and studeIllS m'e presented with a roster and (Espelage. Holt. & Henkel. 20(3) include a asked to nominate classmates that fit certain bullying suhscale that assesses name-calling. descriptors (e.g.. hits. argues. teases. fights. teasing. rumor spreading. exclusion. and teas gets picked on: Boulton. 1997). Nominations ing others. These scales also include a distinct are then tallied for each participant and stu scale that assesses frequency ofphysical fight dents with a substantial number of nominations ing. Items are summed to create a composite are considered bullies. victims. or both. When score and bullies are often identified as those used with middle and high school students. stu students scoring at the extreme end ofthis con dents are asked to nominate three to eight males tinuum. These same methods are used to iden and females who fit certain descriptors (e.g.. tify victims. except that the categorization is tease. exclude: Espelage et al.. 2003). This lat based on items related to the frequency of be ter method does not provide peer- and teacher ing bullied. Another type of self-report mea nomination data for all students. rather identi sure involves providing students with a defi fies students who are engaging in these behav nition of bullying and then asking them to re iors at the greatest frequency. Thus. self-report spond to questions about bullying and victim methods are prekn'ed when the purpose ofdata ization IOlweus, 19H9: Swearer. 20{) I ). These collection is to gather attitudinal and behav surveys (.'omprehensively assess bullying in ioral data from all students and teachers. cidents by soliciting locations where bullying occurs. who engaged in the bullying. how Behavioral observations. Direct be school personnel responded. and attitudes to havioral observations of children and adoles ward bullying. Self-report survey data arc also cents in the natural school setting is an ideal collected from parents and school statf about manner of collecting data on bullying fre their perceptions ofschool bullying. An advan quency and the role of all students (Craig & tage of self-report is that these data can be col Pepler. 1997: Salmivalli. Lagerspetl. lected at multiple time points to assess changes Bjorkqvist. Oestemlan. & Kaukiainen. 1996l. in bullying as a result of prevention efforts. For example. Craig and Pepler (1997) video One issue that should be the focus of future taped aggressive and socially competent Ca- 16'1 School Psychology Revicw, 2U01, Volumc 12 No.1 nadian children in Grades I through 6 on the prompt the participant to complete the Experi playgrouml: pl.:ers were involved in bullying ence Sampling Form (ESF). Upon receipt of in an astounding RS0i of bully episodes. the signal, the participant completes the ESE Among other things. this involvement con which is designed specifically to address the sisted of actively participating in the episode objectives of a particular research study. Typi <309i). observing the interaction (23~). and cally. the ESF includes questions about the intervening ( 120i). FurthermlJre. pl.:ers wl.:rl.: respondent's location. social context. activity. coded as being respectful to the bully in 74'1i thought content. and affect. For hullying re of the episodes. but respectful to the victim in search. questions related to bullying and peer only 2Y;; ofthe episodes. Observational meth victimization could be included. ods providl.: invaluable data about how students Because videotaping and other observa interact: however. observations nel.:d to be con lional measures present both ethical anti meth ducted across a long pcrilJd of time and in a odological challenges to the assessment of variety of settings (e.g.. gym, lunchroom. dif bullying within American schools. many re ferent classrooms) to assess the situational and searchers rely on self-. teacher-. ,md peer-re contextual variables that contribute to bully ports. which fail to assess repetition. a charac ing (Pellegrini. 20(2). For example. if the be teristic that distinguishes bullying from other havioral observations suggest that bullying fre forms of aggression (Lane. IlJ8Y: Olweus. quency is greatest in the lunchroom. training 19Y3: Smith & Thompson. 1991: Solberg & of lunchroom supervisors is wan·anted. In ad Olweus. 20031. Although survey instruments dition. a student might not bully his or her peers have several advantages over observational unless he or she is in a classroom with a new measures (e.g.. inexpensive, more elTicient data teacher who is struggling with classroom man collection. less obtnJsive). integrating survey agement. Thus. the environment may either research with assessments that more closely encourage or inhibit thl.: bullying interaction examine these behaviors as they unfold in a and these Iluctuations in the social environ time-sensitive manner will enhance our UII ment may affect the oull'ome of behavioral derstanding ofbullying. Givenlhat these meth observations. ods may he impractical for school psycholo Need for innovative assessment gists. this call for innovative assessments is directed primarily at researchers. methods. In recent years. human subjects re view boards and federal funding agencies in Insight 2: Bully-Victim Behaviors Fall the United States have placed great restrictions Along a Continuum: Debunking the on the collection ofbehavioral observations as Dyadic Bias active parental consent is becoming mandatory in many school districts. As previously noted. Current methods of assessing and cat Canadian researchers have videotaped bully egorizing students into static groups such as ing on the playground. and hased on these stud "hullies" and "victims" have also been called ies have obtained empirical support for the into 4uestion. This assessment approach as social-ecological perspective (discussed more sumes that bullies and victims fit into a cat completely later> of bullying. A method that egorical. dichotomous. bully or victim dyadic has yet to be used in the area of bullying is the pattern. Much of the recent research 011 bully Experience Sampling Method (ESM: ing has challenged this assllmpti~)n (Bosworth. Csikszentmihalyi & Larson. 1987). ESM is a Espelage. & Simon. 1999; Olweus. 1994: method of recording daily events during hrid Schwartz. Dodge. Pettit. & Bates. 1Y97; Slee. periods of time and is a method for assessing 1995; Solberg & Olweus. 2003: Swearer. Song. altitudes and behaviors '"in real time." This Cary. Eagle. & Mickelson. 200 I ). This research methodology typically involves "beeping" a SUppOTts a conceptualization of bullying he participant at random or predetermined times haviors as dynamic rather than stalic and ar throughout the day with a programmed wrist gues that students' iIlvo!vement falls on a con walch or a pager. which elicits a signal to linllllm. Students can be involved as a bully. a FO Re,c',mh on S,houl Bullying victim. a bully-victim. and/or a hystander. The sion. Indirect aggression is defined as "social examination of hullying along a continuum manipulation. attacking the target in circuitous represents a significant departure from the stan ways" (Oestemtan et aI., 1998. p. I l. Relational dard practice of identifying students who re aggression includes "behaviors that are in peatedly victimize their peers and are known tended to significantly damage anotherchild's as the "bullies" or those students who are the friendships or feelings of inclusion by the peer "victims," This continuum perspective recog group" (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995, p. 711), nizcs that students tease thcir peers in more These include behaviors such as spreading ru subtle ways and on a less regular basis; ho\\'· mors. excluding peers from one's social group. ever. these less frequent behaviors still have and withdrawing friendship or acceptance. serious effects on their targets. and thus. are During the last 8 years. a plethora of worthy of exploration. Furthermore. recent studies have investigated relational aggression research (Salmivalli et al.. 1996; Swearer et across the early school years into adolescence. al.. 20(1) suggests that students have different Relational aggression has been shown to be bullying and victimization profiles, That is. more prevalent among girls than boys bel:ause students are no longer classified as only vic hoys typically engage in more overtly physi tims or bullies, but can be classified as bullies. cal and verbal forms ofaggression (e.g.. Cril~k. aggressive bullies. victims. bully-victims. by 1996; Crick. Casas. & Mosher. 1997; Crick & standers. and normal controls. Given recent Grotpeter. 1995; Rys & Bear. 1997), Different sllldies showing bullying is a group phenom measurement techniques have been used, in enon (see Long & Pellegrini. 2003; Rodkin & cluding peer-reports. teacher-reports, self-re Hodges. 20(3), it is necessary to abandon the ports. and naturalistic observations. Crick and dyadic bias toward buUying and attend to the Grotpeter ( 1995) conducted one of the tirst various roles that students play (e.g.. bystander, studies examining relational aggression and in reinforcer; Salmivalli et aI., 1996) and recog many ways opened the door for future research nize the diversity of experiences along the on this type of aggression. The study included bully/victim continuum, 491 third through sixth graders, from four pub· Insight 3: Relational Aggression Does lic schools in a midwestern town. A 19-item Not Account for Sex Differences in peer nomination instrument was used to assess Aggression relational aggression, overt aggression (defined as physical and verbal). prosocial behavior, and For decades. males have been considered isolation. Peer nomination scores were used to the more aggressive sex. In hundreds of stud classify students into four groups: relationally ies. research on aggression has found that. as a aggressive. overtly aggressive, both overtly and group. boys exhibit significantly higher levels relationally aggressive. and nonaggressive. No of aggression than girls (for review see Coie & sex difference was indicated in the number of Dodge, 1998). Recently, however. researchers students who were classified in the have questioned whether males are in fact more nonaggressive group: 7.'.09(' of the boys evalu aggressive than females. Historically. many stud ated and 78.39(, of the girls fell in this group. ies on aggression have excluded girls from the However. statistically signiticant sex differences sample (Crick & Rose. 21XlI ) and have defined were found for the overtly aggressive group: aggression as overtly physical or verbal, but have 15Hk of the boys and A% of the brirls were in failed to consider more subtle. covert forms. this group. Furthernlore. the relationally aggres Some have posited that if aggression was de sive group consisted of 2.0% of the boys and fined as different types of aggressive acts, the 17 A(k ofthe girls. The remaining children (9.4% relationship between sex and aggression would of the hays. 3.8f;'r of the girls) were placed in become less clear (Crick & Grotpeter. J9951. the relationally and overtly aggressive group. As such. several different ternlS are used A second study (Rys & Bear. 1997) at to describe covert types of aggression, includ tempted to replicate the findings of Crick and ing indirect aggression and relational aggres- Grotpeter (1995). Rys and Bear assessed rela- ~71 School P,ychulogy I{evit·w. 2(1)3. VolumeJ2. No. ~ tional aggression among other fOllllS ofaggres needs to be a foundation of prevention and in sion in 131 third graders and 135 sixth graders, tervention programs. from nine elementary schools and five middle schools in the mid-Atlantic public school sys Individual Characteristics tem. Given their goal of replicating the Cril:k Sex differences haw ben the focus of and Grotpeter study. they used the same peer much research on bullying and peer victim nomination measure to assess children's ag it.ation. However. several other key faL'lors gressive and prmocial behaviors. Although have consistently emerged in the literature as boys were more overtly aggressive than girls important individual characteristics ofstudents and girls were more prosocial than hoys, no who hully their peers. sex ditlerences in relational aggression were found, Similarly, findings in a study of 26X Race/edmicity. A few studics shed light middle school students also indicated no sig on the role of racc/ethnicity or race on bully nificant sex dillerenccs on relational aggression ing. but also point to lhe dearth of literature in when implementing the Crick and Grotpeter this area. In their large-scale survcy of approxi ( 1995) relational aggression scale (Espelage et mately 16.000 U.S. youth. Nansel et al. (2001 ) al.. 2fXB). These contradictory findings indicate found that Hispanic youth reported bullying that future research needs lo explore the con others only lIIarginally more than White or struct of n:]ational aggression as well as the as Black students. whereas Black youth reported sociations to relational victimization, being bullied significantly more than Whitcs or Hispanics. Incolllrasl. Graham and Juvonen Insight 4: Need to View Bullying From a (20021 found that African Americans were Social-Ecological Perspective more likely to be nominaled as aggressive than Latino and multiethnic urban middle school Drawing upon Bronfenhrenner's ( 1979) students. In a study of Asian and White chil pioneering work on ecological systems theory. dren aged 9-15 years (Moran. Smith. Thomp bullying and pc'cr victimi/ation has been con son. & Whitney. \993). no differences emerged ceptuali/ed from a :-.ocial-ecological perspec between these two groups on rrel.juency of tive (Dishion el al.. 1995: Swearer & Doll. bullying others or being bullied: howe\er. SOc; 200 I ). From this theoretical framcwork. hul ofthe bullied Asian children (compared to none lying is an ecological phenomenon that is es or the White bullied children) \\ere called tablished and perpetrated over time as a result names because of their skin color. Collectively. of the l'omp!ex interplay between inter- and the relation between race/ethnicity and bullying intra-individual variables. Individual charac is complex and is potentially intluenceL! by the teristics arc considered jointly influenced by a racial/ethnic composition of the classroom. variety ofecological contexts. induding peers. school. or community l1uvonen. Nishina. & families. schools. and community factors. Graham. 20(1). FUl1hermore. it appears the Studies have identilied individualcharacteris prevalence of bullies across race/ethnicity is tics associated with bullying that are impor perhaps less important lhan how racial dynam tant targets of intervention. However. studies ics inlluence the content of the bullying. have also clearly documented that the actions of peers. teachers and other adults at school, A~e. Although aggression i:-. often de physical characteristics of the school grounds, scriheJ as a stahle trait over the course ofehild family ractors, cultural characteristics le.g., hood and adolescence. there is strong support race. ethnieity). and even community factors that bullying might have a different trajectory are implicated in the development and main (Farrington. 1991: Goldstein. 1994: Loeber & tenance of bullying. Again.st the backdrop of Stouthamer-Locber. 199R). In facl. the more the ecological framework. it is imperative that typical trajectory of bullying from a develop researchers and school personnel understand mental pcrspectivc is an incrcase and peak the complex ecological systems in which bul during early adolescence. and a decrease in lying and victimization occur. This ecology bullying during lhc high school years (Nansel 1"" R"'l'drch on School Bullvll1g et al.. 200 I: Pellegrini & Bartini. 200I: Smith. lowed by victims. and then bullies. Bully-vIC Madsen. & Moody. 1999). It is therefore im tims were also the most at-risk group for sui portant for prevention and intervention efforts cidal ideation. The high occurrence of suicidal to be directed at the transition from elemen ideation among participant.. along the bully/ tary to middle school. In addition to consider victim continuum is not surprising consider ing sex. age. and race/ethnicity influences on ing that bullying is not a static event. but rather bullying. other individual characteristics have it occurs a.S repeated evellls over time (Hatler been identified as potential correlates that & Came). 2(00). Additionally. findings from should be considered in school-based preven a rel'ent analysis ofSl'hool shootings from 197-+ tion and intervention programs. to 200() indicate that 7WYt- of the attackers had a history of suicide atlempts or suiL-idal Anger. Anger Ims consistently emerged thoughb and 61 (;It had a history of seril >Us de as an important correlate ofbullying. In a study pression (Vossekuil et al.. 20021. of558 middle school students. anger was found to he the strongest predictor of bullying Anxiety. Anxiety is also a salient men (Bosworth et al.. 19(9). Anger was also a sig tal health l'oncern for bullies. victims. and nificant predictor of an increase in this behav hully-\'ictims. There is a paucity of research ior over a 6-momh period: that is. students who conducted specitically on anxiety and bully were the angriest in the fall semester reported ing. and the research that is available has an increase in bullying nver the school year yielded inconsistent findings. Some studies (bpelage et al.. 200 I ). These findings. wm lind that \ ictillls of bullying have higher rail's bined with the consistent relation between ag of anxiety than bullies (Craig. I99R: Olwl.'us. gression and anger (Huesmann. 199.+ l. suggest 1994: Slce. 199.+). whereas others rind that that anger management training might be ben bullies and victims report similar !e\'e1s of,Ulxi eficial for some students who bully their peers. ely (Duncan. 1991J I. To complicate the picturl.'. hully-victims haw also been found to have Depression. Depression has been found higher levels of anxiety when compared to to be a common mental health symptom expe hullies or victims (Duncan. ]lJl)lJ: SWl.'arer L't rienced by male and female victims of hully '11.. 200 I l. Researchers have round that victims ing (Callagan & Joseph, 1995: Kaltiala-Heino. of hullying display increased rates of sd]()ol Rimpela. Marttunen. Rimpela. & Rantanen. refusal (Sahnon. James. ('assidy. & Ja\aloyes. 1999: Kumpulainen. Rasanen. & Puura. 2001: 2(00). school absenteeism ISlee. Il)l)'+). so Neary & Joseph. 199.+). Furthermore. Craig matic symptoms (Rigby. 19961. and physiGd ( 199R) found higher depression levels for girls health complainl.s (Williams. Chambers. Lo in comparison to boys \\.. ho were victimi/ed. gan. & Robinson. 1996 l. which may relled the Depression is not. however. unique to victims victim's desire to avoid school. Furthermore. only. Clinically elevated depression levels have been found for both malc and female students being bullied may lead \0 anxious behaviors. which perpetuate victimi7.ation experiences who bully their peers (Austin & Joseph. 19lJ6: and subsequently lead to greater anxiety (Roth. Slee. 1995). Bully-victims. those students who Coles. & Heimberg. bully and have heen bullied. have also been 20021. found to have higher rates of depression than Empathy. Many bullying pre\enll\ln bullies (Austin & Joseph. 1(96) and in other programs include empathy training hased on studies. bully-victims report higher depression the extensive literature dOl'umenting the rule levels than victims (Swearer et al.. 2001l. of empathy in supprl.'ssing aggression I Miller Kaltiala-Heino et al. ( 19(9) assessed the rela & Eisenberg. 19RX I. Research suggests that tionship between bully/victim status and de self-declared bullies sometimes report feeling pression and suicidal ideation among adoles sorry after bullying their peers (Borg. IlJlJX I: cents aged 1.+ to 16. The authors reported that hO\\C\·cr. many bully prevention and intef\l.'n after controlling for age and sex. bully-viclJllls lion programs assume Ihat these students Ial'k exhibited the highest risk for depression. fol- empathy. It is plausihk that the relation !x'- ~l hoo! ['W( holo).:,· R('\I('w. 21111 \. \!olunw ;2. Nfl, \ tlleen elllpalh~ ano hullying might vary oe oiJ find. hO\I el·er. that a pllsiti\'l' attituoe to penoing Oll the cOlllponent of empathy heing ward bullying Illeoiated thc as<;oci:llion be mea,ured and the type uf aggre"ion under twecn empathIC concern and the frequency of ,tudy, Thereforc. the implementatiun of Clll hullying others. In other I'llI'd.... respondent.-. path~ training ha,ed (In the assumption that Ililh high levels of empathic conCl:'m tenoed hullie, 00 not pu"-e,, empathy IS unwarranted, to liew bullying a... nl'gative and therefllre bul The focu, for prelenlion ano intervention lied others less. Thi, Illediation was found for should not be ,oldy to eraoicate bullying. hut hoth hoys and girls. This study highlight.-. the to foster more prosocial and respectful behav importance of considering attitudes toward iors among all students. For example. although hullying in understanding how empathy rel:ltL'S unable to partial out the unilJue effects of em to this subset of aggression. pathy training. the Second Sti'fl violence pre Nonnative beliefs toward bullying. vention program has heen efficacious in reduc Empathy i... intriL'atdy related to a student .... ing aggressilc hehaviors and increa,ing view of aggre,sil1n and hullying. That i.... if a pw,ocial bd1al ior, (Frey. Hir,chstein. & ... tudent feel, that hullying i... "pan of growing GUllo.2000l. up" (If "hannless." he or she is less likely to One of the Ilnl~ ,tuJie, that sfll'Cifiwlll feel upset when hull~ ing (lr ohsening others aoore,-,e, empathic rl',p(lnding ano hullYlllg hemg hullied. Indeed. a posiliw attitude to heh~ll ior Ila, conouch:d hy Enoresen ano lIard ;tggres.,ioll i, highl~ as-;ociated with the Ohll'U, (2()() I I. Four 1~lrge reprl'sentatile propensity \(l hully other... (Bentley & Li. 1995: ,ample, of N(lnlegian ;looll',cents. ranging in Endresen 8: Olweu.... 2001: Pellegrini. 2002,. age from 13 to I() years. completed the Em Bentley ano Li ( 19'.1:") found hullies (Grades pathic Re,pon,ilene,,- Questionnairl' 10lweus '+~()I were more likely to hold beliefs support 8: Endresen. 1l)9X) and two ,uhscales takell iw of aggres'lon than were ... tudents who did from the Ol\wus BullylVictim Questionnaire not hully. Whereas thi ... i... not a surprising Ilnd IOlweu.s. 19XLJ. 19%). including the Positive ing. it suggests a neeo to identify environlllen Altituoe to Bullying 15 ilems) and the Bully lal factors that rOSier a proviolencl' attituJI' in ing Olhers (.+ item,) scales. The empathy mea sdHlols alld to recogni/e hullying a a marker sure consists of 12 items comprising three for more seriou, aggre,,-il e beha\ior (Nansel. suh'cales. inciuJing an empathy distres, Overpeck. Haynie. Ruan. &: Scheidt. 2(03) In suhscale (e.g .. "It often makes me Jistressed adoition. gilell that nllt all student.-. arc thl' II hen I see something saJ lln TV"). a ,~mpa "school yard hullie<' and "'01111.' l11ay take Iln thelic reaction tOllaro girls ,uoscalc le,g.. roles sudl a.' h~ stanoers. It is importalll tOUIl "When I see a girl who is hurt. I wish to help derqand hO\1 helieh ,upportile of liolellce ha"l. and a s~ mpathelic real'liun towarJ hoys and el11path~ for students rdale along the bully subscale Ic.g .. "Seeing a ho~ who is saJ makes I ictim continuulll, me want to comfol1 him"). SlUoellls indicate on a l1-point ,cale whether the item applies to Social skill deficit versus theory of them. from /lol allil/through lIpplii'.1 i'.\lI('f". mind, One of the l11(1st inllul'ntialexplanalor~ Results inoicaleo that girls rl')lllrtl'd model, of aggression is hased on social infor higher lowllevel, of empathic responsivcne s. mation processing (Crick & Dodge. 199.+: incluoing greater lel'ds Ill' emotillnal oistre , Dodge 8: Coil', 19X7\. This model posits that ano mllre empathic conCl'rn (for boys and girls) impairmelll in ... ocia) problem solving i... im 111 and intervention programs need to consider the recognize instances of bullying. Therefore. in school climate as a potential contributing fac terventions should include an assessment of tor in promoting or inhibiting bullying (see Left' teachers' altitudes toward bullying and how et aI.. 2003). Students need to be asked whether they relate toward students. Education about they feel like they belong and are respected at bullying for teachers is also necessary. In fact. the school, how teadlers 'Uld administrators view this training should extend to preservice teach hullying. how reports of such behavior arc ers (Boulton. 1997). lunchroom supervisors handled. and how much the administr&ioll mod (Boulton. 1996). ,md school bus drivers. A ''train els and promotes respect for diversity in their the-trainers" model of education can facilitate school. These factors play an instrumental role the training ofall school staft· (see Olweus. Lim in the manner in which students treat each other. ber. & Mihlic. J999 for a description). Researchers have asserted that best prac Community Factors: It Does Take a tice dictates that bullying prevention and in Village to Reduce BuUying tervention programs involve all levels of the social ecology including the student involved Given the complexity surrounding bul in the bully/victim continuum. the school. the lying behaviors. prevention and intervention family. and the community (Horne. eff0l1s need to include not only the individua1. Bartolomucci. & Newman-Carlson. 2003: peer group. family. and schoo1. but also the Larson. Smith. & Furlong. 2002: Olweus. Lim community. Our cOlllmunities are rich environ ber & Mihalic. 1999: Swearer & Doll. 200 I). ments comprising neighborhoods. churches. Although this makes solid clinical and research after-school programs. recreational centers.li sense. what do we know about the relation braries. and community centers. Often. schools ship between school climate and bullying? can partller with these groups and organiza How might the interaction between the student tions in order to reduce bullying. Wraparound involved in bullying and the school climate of services can help families utilize community a particular school serve to encourage or in services. An example of effectively utilizing hibit bullying behaviors? community resources to reduce antisocial be Teachers' attitudes. To develop a more havior is Illultisystemic treatment (MST: thorough conceptualization of the environ Henggeler et al.. 1998). ments in which youth are educated. it is nec Future Research Directions essary to increase our understanding of teach ers' altitudes and behaviors related to bullying Previous research paves the way for fu and vi-:timizatioll. In particular, teachers might ture directions in bullying research. Where do foster bullying hy failing to either promolc re educators and researchers need to go from spectful interactions among students or speak here? Clearly. serious definitional and meth out against teasing and other behaviors con odological issues need to be addressed in or sistent with bullying. Bullying is a major prob der to better assess bullying. The relationship lem. yet only limited research has addressed among bullying. sexual harassment. and racial teachers' roles in bullying dynamics. Extant harassment needs to be resolved. Recently. studies have documented that teachers (a) tend much attention in the popular press has been to report lower prevalence rates of bullying given to gay. lesbian. bisexual. and than do students (e.g.. Stockdale. transgendered (GLBT) youth and bullying. Hangaduambo. Duys. Larson. & Sarvela. Bullying needs to be examined within special 2002). (b) do not always correctly identify populations such as GLBT youth. students in bullies (e.g.. Leff et al.. 1999). and (c) typi special education. and ethnically diverse youth. cally do not feel confident in their abilities to Are students bullied because they are differ deal with bullying (e.g.. Boulton. 1997). Teach ent? How might a school climate that respects ers might not only be unaware of the extent to diversity inhibit bullying behaviors'? Is there a which bullying occurs in their schools. but relationship between acceptances of differ might he ul1\villing to intervene should they ences and a willingness to intervene in hully- 17H Rl:"t'drch un Schuol Bullying ing episodes? Less attention has been given to ahout aggrcssion. CIII/<1dil1l1 Journal o{ School P.IT· :'i~-16:'i. how components of the social ecology interad 379 Sehuul P,ychulogy Review, 20tH. Vulunll' 31. No. -' elementary school children. ['ersollalify alld Illdil'idua! Endresen.1. M.. & Olweus. n. (2001 J. Self·repprted em Dillen·IICl's. 2./. 11~-I.'O. pathy in Norw.:gian adplescenh: SL'X differences. age Craig. W. M .. & Pepler. D. J. f 19lJ7). Ohservations of bul trend,. and relationship to bullying. In A. C. Bohart. lying and \'ictillllwtion in the schoolyard. Calladia" C. Arthur. &. D. J. Stip.:k (Ed'.I. COII.\[ructi,',-,~ de .!OIII"IIliI O(SdIOO!I'sl'cllOlop·. 13.41-59. sfruetil'" "elllll"o/": Iml'linl/ioll.\fi'riim,il\·. ,,·hool. al/(! Crick. N. R. 1199.~l. Relational aggres.sion: The role of mciery Ipp. 147·1651. Waslllngton. DC: ATllerican Psy. intent altrihulions. feelings of distress, and pnwoca cholpgical AssoL·lation. tlonlype. Del'l'/"!,lIlolllllld l'\ych0l'lIrllologr. 7, ~ I~ Ennen. S. T.. "'- Baulllan. K. E. (10941. 1111.' L'pntrihution 322. of innuenL'e and selectipn I" ad"lescellt peer group Crick, N. R. 119 .lan ReSl'ilrch on School Bullving Hcnggeler. S. \V.. Schoenw'lld. S. K.. Borduin. C 1\1., lunchrollm: Implications for bullying prevention pro Rowlund. M. D.. & Cunninghum. P. B. (199)1). gramming. School P.'.I'chologv Rel'in.., .C, 41 >1-430. Mllitisystell/ic trelltmelll o{allti.wcial behm'ior in chil LefT. S. S.. Power. l' J.• Man/, P. H.. Costigan. 1'. E.. & dren iJlul adolescents. New York: The Guilford Press. Nabors, L. A. (200 I). School-ha,ed aggression pre Hoover. .I. H.. Oliver. R.. & Hazier. R. J. (19921. Bully vention programs for young cbildr... n: Current sla(Us Ing: Perceptions ofadolescent victims in the Midwest and implications for violence prevention. School Poll" em USA. School PsycilOlogr In/emotional. 13. 5-16. ch"log." Rai",... 30. 3+l-Yi_'. Home. A. 1\1 .. Bartolomucei_ C. L._ & Newman-Carlson. Leslie. A. M. (1987). Pr... tense and r... presentation: The D. i2(03). Bllllv "".l'1ers: A teach"':1 mall/lillj"r help origins of"theory of mind." P.I·I'c!wlogiml Rn'iI'\I'. 'N. illg hul/ie.l. l'ictims. alld l'rsllJllden. Champaign. II.: 412-426. Research Press. Lenng. M. C. ( 19941. Sodal cognition and so<.'iai netllit'rb Huesmann. L. R. (Ed. I. ( 19Y4 ,. Aggres.lil·e heh,lvior: Cllr of Chin... s... school children in Hong Kong. Dis.li'l'ta relltll<'rJ/"'Cli,'es. New York: Plenum Press. tion Ab.\tl'llet.\ IllIematimli/l. 54 t 12-B I. Juvonen. 1.. & Graham. S. (20nl). Peer hllrassmelll ill Limber. S. P.. Cummingham. P. Florx. v., h·ey. J., Na s"/lOol: The pligh/ of the I'IIlw'mbie alld I'lctill/i~ed. tion. M .• (,hai. S.. & Melton, G. (1'197. JuneOulYJ. New York: Guilford Press. Bllllring Il//long .Icho(ll childrcn: Pr,·/iminanjinding., Juvonen. J.. Nishina. A .. & Gruham. S. i20(1). Self-views tinm II .1c!lOol-ba.w·d illl/'ll'enrirml'mgl'llm. Paper pre versus peer perceptions of victim staIns among early sented at the Fifth International Family Violence Re adolescents. In J. Jnvonen & S. Graham IEds.1. P,'e,. search Conference. Durham. NH. Iwra.lsmell/ ill sehool: 7111' plight ofrhe I'uillera"'" lilld Limber, S. P.. & Small. 1\1. A. (2003). Laws and p(,licles ..ietillli::.ed (PP. 105-124). New York: Guilford. to address bullying in U.S. s(·hools. School Psychol Kaltiala-Heino. R.. Rimpela. M .. Mamunen. M.. Rimpela. og\ Rel·in.: 32. 445-455. A.. & Rantanen. P. 119(9). Bullying. depression. and Loeber. R.. & Dj,hion. T. (19:\.' J. Early pr...dic(ors of male suicidal ideation in Finnish udolescents: School snr delinlluency: A review. ('.I\ch"l(lgimIBlllletin. W. 6R vey. British Medinzl.loumal. 319. 34g-35I. '19. Kandel. D. B. i 197Rj. Homophily. selection. and so,:ial Lueh r. R.. & Stouthamer-Loeb<'I. M. (19l)~). Develop- ization in adolesc... nt friendships. Amcricun J(llmwl of" m nt ofjuvenile aggr... ssion and vioil'nc'e: Some com- Sociology. 8ol. 427-4:'\6. mon Illisconceptions and contro\·ersies. Americlln Psr Kasen. S.. Cohen. P.. &: Brook. 1. S. 11998). Adolescent ("hologi.\f. 53, 242-259. school experiences and dropout. adolescent pregnancy. Lung. .J. 0 .. & Pellegrini. A. D. i2tXl31. SlUdying change and young adult d... viant behavior. Jot/rtI(/lo(AdoleI in dominance and bullying with linear mixed models. ,'elll Res('(/11'11. 13.49-72. Sch"ol ('sychol(lg.l· N'Ti,,": 32. 401-417. Kasen. S.. Johnson. 1.. & Cohen. P. (1990). The impact of Ma. X. (20021. Bullying in middk school: Individual and school ... motlonal climate on studenl psychopathology. sdl\)(,lc'haracterislics of victims and offenders. School Jot/mal ojAbnonllal Child P.'l'cllOlogy. 18. 165-177, E(li:f'/it'f'l/t'.\S mill School///l/Jf'(JI·/,lIIel1l. 13. 6.'-R9. Kumpulaincn. K.. Rasanen. E.. 8: Puum. K. (20011. Psy Milkr. 1'.. & Eisenberg. N. (1')8>11. The relation of empa c'hiatric disorders and the lise of menIal health st"rvic ... s th) to aggrt"ssil'e and externali/ll1g/antis(ll'i,il beha\ among children involved in bullying. Aggr".lsil'l' Be ior. P.wclwlogical Bullerin. 103. 324-344. 'lal'io,. 27. 102-11 (1. Moffitt. T. E. (191)3). Adol ... scent·limited and life-cour,e KlIpemlinc. G. P.. Leadbeater, B. 1.. Emmons. C. & Blan. pnsistent anti-s()\.·ial beha\ ior: A developmental lax S. J. (1997). Perceived school climate and difficulties onomy.l'Sl'chologiwl R{'I'i('I\', IUU. 674-701. in the social adjustment of middle school sludents. Moran. 5 .. Smilh. P. K.. Thompson. D.. & Whitney. I. Applied f)t'I'l'lo/II//('l/tal S";e,/('I'. I( 2). 76-8R. (I CJCJJI. Ethnic diITerelll''''s in ... xpericlKes of hullying: KlIper1l1inc. G. P.. Leadbeater. B. 1.. & Blatt. S. 1. (20U]). Asian and white children. Brirish .Iolll'lllli (II' Educa School social climate and individual differences in vul tional Psrcholog\'. 1l3. 431-440. n... rability to psychopathology among middle school SIU Nansd. T. R.. Overpeck. M .. Pilla. R. S.. Ruan. W. 1.. dents. JOI/I'I1<11 ofSeilOol PsvcJlOlogy. 39. 141-159. Simons-Morton. B.. & St·heidr. P. ,20111 J. Bullying I.ane. D. A. (19891. Violent hi,tories: Bullying and crimi hehaviors .Ul1t1llg LIS youth: I'reval... nc... and associa nality. In D. P. Tatlum & D. A, Lane (Eds.). HI/living tion iii ith psychosocial adjustment. JOUl'llol of the in schools (pp. 95-1(4). Stoke-on-Tr... nt. l'.K.: AmericlllI Medical ;\'.lo('l,lIi(ln. 285. 2() 361 St 11001 P.,ycholugy Rl'Vlt'W, 200l, Volunw \2. Nu. I Olweus. D. (l discipline referrals to assess ,mdmonitor school-wide Tolan. P. H.. Cromwell. R. E.. & Braswell. M.II'-JK61. Tlk' discipline intervel1liom. JOl/mal o( Emlltiol/al tllle! applic;llillnof family therapy to juvenile delinquency Behavioral Disorders. 8.9..\·102. A criti<.:al rel'iew of the literature. Falml." I'm,·n.\', 15, Sutton. 1.. Smith. P. K .. & Swettenham. J. II ')l)9l. Bully 61'1-64'1. ing ,u1 Dorothy L. Espelagc. Ph.D.. is an Associate Professor of Counseling Psychology in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of lIlinois. Urbana-Champaign. She earned her Ph.D. in Counseling Psychology frllm Indiana University in 1997. She has conducted research on bullying for the last seven year,. As a result. she presents regularly at national conferences and is author on over 30 professional publications. She is on the editorial board for Journal (J( Counseling and Dl'l'elul'lIll'lll. She has presented hundreds of workshops and in-service training seminars for teachers. administrators. counselors. and social workers across the U.S. Her research focuses on transl'lling empirical findings into prevention and intervention programming. Dr. Espelage has appeared on many televi sion news and talk shows. including The Today ShoH'. CNN. CBS EI'Cllillg Neil'S. and The Oprah Wi/lire.\' Shol1' and has been yUllted in the natiunal print press. incluJing Timc Maga "iI/f. USA Toda.\'. lmd Peoplc magazine. Susan M. Swearer. Ph.D.. is an Assistant Professor of School Psychology in the Depan ment of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She eamed her Ph.D. in School Psychology from The University of Texas at Austin in 1997. She has conducted research on the relationship between depression and anxiely and externalizing problems (with a specific emphasis on bullying) in children and adolescents f,)r the past decade. Dr. Swearer regularly presents at national conferences and conducts workshops on bullying and victimization in sehoul-aged youth. She writes regularly on the topic of bullying and is on the editorial review boards for Education lind Treat/l/ell/ 11 Children. School Ps.\'c!wlogv QUlIrterly. and School Psychology Rl'I'iell'. Her research project on bullying. "Target bullying: Ecologically-based prevention and intervention for schools" teaches school personnel how to collect ecologically valid data on hullying and use those dala to guide prevention and intervention efforts. 38j