1 Orpinas + Horne (2006): 'double I R'.
Imbalance of power, intentional,
repeated over time.
1.1 Juvonen +} Graham (2004): power
imbalance is most important; victim
unable to prevent/stop the aversive
1.2 Power = not only physical size/strength/access to resources
1.2.1 Type of power being abused differs between types of bullying:
resource-holding potential (physical), social attention-holding
(verbal), affiliative relationships/sense of belonging (relational)
2.1 Hansen et al (2012): 5.3%-50% worldwide
2.1.1 Monks et al (2008): variability due to definitions,
including time period etc.
2.2 Tellus4survey (Chamberlain et al, 2010): 29% of UK pupils
in year 6/8/10 surveyed had been bullied in previous year.
Nearly half had been bullied at some point in their
2.3 Childline (2014): 69% increase in racist bullying
compared to previous year. 87% increase in
cyberbullying between 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2.3.1 Children said 24h nature of
cyberbullying makes it
particularly hard to escape
2.4 Stonewall's "The School Report" (Guasp, 2012): survey of 1,145
LGB young people in 2006. 65% had experienced direct
homophobic bullying. 35% of LG people did not feel safe or
accepted at school. Only 25% reported that their school had said
homophobic bullying was wrong.
2.5 Rigby and Smith (2011): international review of
repeated measures studies published 1990-2009.
Bullying generally decreasing, except for perhaps a
minority of countries.
2.5.1 Review findings for cyberbullying less
conclusive than for traditional bullying - in
2009, they could only located two repeated
measures designs to explore prevalence
3.1 Having been bullied at school is associated
with elevated risk of childhood/young adult
psychiatric disorders (Copeland et al, 2013)
3.2 Having been part of a peer group characterised by
bullying/victimisation is associated with negative effects
(Gutman and Brown, 2008)
4 Identifying bullies
4.1 Pellegrini + Bartini (2000): low to moderate
correlation between methods of identifying bullies
4.2 Boys more likely to be identified as bullies.
Otherwise, identification depomds on assessment
method used. (Copeland et al, 2013)
4.3 Self Reports
4.3.1 Definition of bullying, rate frequency.
E.g. Peer relations questionnaire - 6
item bully scale, 5 item victim scale.
4.3.2 Generally anonymous, encouraging honesty
4.3.3 Social desirability biases
4.4 Peer assessments
4.4.1 Asking a class to individually identify
classmates who meet the behavioural
descriptions of bully/victim/etc.
4.4.2 E.g. Participant role scales
(Salmivolli, 1999), "Guess Who"
(Nabozoka + Smith, 1993)
4.5 Teacher questionnaires
4.5.1 Teacher often unaware of much bullying (e.g. in
playground) so less reliable most of the time (Smith, 2004)
4.5.2 Better for younger aged pupils because
child reports are less reliable and
children are more closely supervised
4.6.1 Primarily (but rarely) used for very young children
220.127.116.11 Older children spread out more during breaks
4.6.2 Time consuming
4.6.3 Relational bullying difficult to observe
4.6.4 Presence of adult observer decreases incidence of physical/verbal bullying
4.7 Juvonen et al (2001):
depends on goal of