CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 14 (2000) pp. 294–303
Bullying and Harassment in Schools
and the Rights of Children
Peter K. Smith
Goldsmiths College,
University of London
Peter K. Smith, Department of
Psychology, Goldsmiths
College, New Cross, London,
SE14 6NW. E-mail:
[email protected]
By the year 2000, the issue of school bullying has come to occupy a
prominent role in the national consciousness of many countries. There
has been considerable media publicity, many publications, a great
deal of research, and the beginnings of successful school-based
interventions to reduce bullying. In this article I define the term
bullying, and discuss the history of the recent upsurge in interest and
research. I then overview main findings concerning the nature of
school bullying, the school-based intervention work so far, and the
implications for future research and action. Copyright 2000 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
By the end of the twentieth century, the issue of school
bullying has come to occupy a prominent role in the
national consciousness of many countries, including the
UK, other western European countries, North America,
Australia, New Zealand and Japan. There has been considerable
media publicity, at times intense; many publications;
a great deal of research; and the beginnings of successful
school-based interventions to reduce bullying. In this article I
will discuss the history of this phenomenon, some of the principal
findings and interventions, and their implications. First,
a definition of the term.
Bullying is an English term, which seems to have originated in
the sixteenth century from the middle Dutch word ‘boele’,
meaning lover; this became ‘fine fellow’ and ‘blusterer’ and
eventually its present meaning of ‘an aggressive person who
intimidates or mistreats weaker people’ (Encarta World English
Dictionary, 1999). The original more positive meaning of the
term is retained in the phrase ‘bully for you’, expressing
approval at a daring action. The term does not have exact
equivalents in the Latin languages, but the Scandinavian term
‘
mobbning’, the Dutch word ‘pesten’ and the Japanese term
‘
ijime’ convey similar meanings.
The consensual definition which has emerged amongst most
researchers (Olweus, 1999) agrees substantially with the above
dictionary definition: bullying is aggressive behaviour which
intentionally hurts or harms another person; together with
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
Bullying in Schools 295
repetition—it happens more than once; and a power imbalance such that it
is difficult for
the victim to defend him- or herself. A succinct definition is the ‘systematic
abuse of
power’.
The well-known forms of bullying are physical—a larger child hits or beats
up a smaller
one, or takes or damages their belongings—and verbal—nasty forms
of teasing and verbal
abuse. Increasingly recognised as bullying are indirect and relational forms.
Indirect
bullying refers to social manipulation using others as a means of attack, or
otherwise
manipulating the social network of the victim; relational bullying to inflicting
harm on
peers in ways that damage peer relationships; these overlapping concepts cover
spreading
nasty rumours, and deliberate social exclusion.
The term bullying tends to be associated with school, and it is pupil-pupil bullying
in
school I will review here. However, the term can be applied in any social situation
from
which a victim feels unable to readily remove themselves from; and increasingly
there is
recognition of, and research on, bullying in adult life, including prisons and
Young
Offenders Institutions (Ireland and Archer, 1996) and the workplace (Adams, 1992).
Parentchild
or adult-child abuse could also be considered bullying, but there is a separate
tradition of research and action in these areas.
History of interest
Olweus’ book (1978; original Swedish version 1973) is often seen as a founding
publication
in this area. The Scandinavian countries have been at the forefront of bringing
bullying to
the attention of the educational and scientific community. In the 1980s, considerable
interest in bullying (ijime) developed quite separately in Japan, which declined
in the later
1980s but resurfaced strongly in the mid 1990s.
A European conference in Stavanger in 1987, and news of the success of the national
intervention campaign against bullying in Norway (see later) inspired work in
other
European countries. It has been taken up vigorously in England, Wales and Scotland;
and
many other countries have now carried out surveys and started interventions.AEuropeanwide
conference was held in 1998 (http://www.gold.ac.uk/euconf). Outside Europe, there
has been interest in Canada and the US, and in Australia and New Zealand. The
Japanese
Ministry of Education and UNESCO funded a comparative study of bullying in Japan,
England, Norway, the Netherlands and the US (Smith and others, 1999).
The development of this research area seems to have come about through various
reasons:
, A growing consciousness of individual rights in the more socio-economically
secure
democracies.
, The occurrence of tragic events such as suicides of children and young people
who have
been bullied extensively at school and have been unable to cope (as has happened
in
Norway, Japan and England).
, The role of the mass media in drawing attention to the issue. Suicides, or
even sometimes
survey findings on bullying, can trigger off a remarkable spate of newspaper
reports
and television programmes, as in England in 1989, and in Japan in 1994–5
(Morita and
others, 1999).
296 Peter K. Smith
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
, The response of either charitable organisations or government agencies which
put
resources into research and intervention.
Interest in the UK
The Elton Report on discipline in schools (Department of Education and Science,
1989)
recommended that schools should encourage pupils to tell staff of serious cases
of bullying,
deal firmly with bullying behaviour, and take action based on clear rules and
backed
by appropriate sanctions and systems to protect and support victims. The Gulbenkian
Foundation set up an advisory working group on ‘Bullying in schools’,
which funded a
booklet (Tattum and Herbert, 1990); a ChildLine Bullying Line which received
some 40–
200 calls a day over three months (La Fontaine, 1991); an annotated bibliography
and
resource guide (Skinner, 1992); and the preparation of resource materials (Besag,
1992;
Tattum and others, 1993). The national charity Kidscape produced materials and
campaigned
on the issue of school bullying (Elliott, 1991). Robinson and Maines (1997) advocated
a ‘No Blame’ approach to tackling bullying. These and many other
initiatives have
since contributed sources of practical help for schools and teachers.
The Gulbenkian Foundation also supported survey work, which I directed. Results
reported from 1989–91 revealed that bullying was widespread. Newspaper
headlines
asked whether Britain was the ‘Bullying capital of Europe’. This
publicity encouraged the
Department for Education (DFE) to fund a project in Sheffield (1991–4)
designed to
evaluate how useful interventions were. In 1992, the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC) That’s Life programme pursued the topic following the suicide of
an adolescent girl
due in part to bullying at school. Questions were asked in Parliament about what
action
the government was taking on bullying. The DFE circulated to all schools in England
and
Wales a pack by Johnstone and others (1992) (circulated to schools in Scotland
previously).
A second pack had advice for parents and non-teaching staff (Mellor, 1993; Munn,
1993).
The ChildLine bullying line received further funding for seven months in 1994
as part of
a BBC social action project. It received a total of 58,530 calls; the majority
of callers were
within the age range 11 to 14 years, predominantly girls (see McLeod and Morris,
1996).
In 1995 the DFE issued a Pack Don’t Suffer in Silence, based on the Sheffield
intervention
project, giving guidance to schools and teachers. A video accompanied the text.
The Pack
was free to all state schools in England, and over 90 per cent schools requested
it. Office
for Standards in Education (OFSTED) inspectors began to inquire whether bullying
was a
problem in a school, and whether the school had taken measures to combat it,
including
having a policy. Successful legal actions have been taken by pupils or their
parents against
schools in which they were persistently bullied.
During the 1990s, following the publicity, availability of resources, and circulation
of the
DFE Pack, many schools in England developed anti-bullying policies. A survey
of antibullying
work in schools and their evaluation of the Pack found that 29 per cent had a
separate whole-school bullying policy, 58 per cent had a section on bullying
as part of a
wider behaviour or discipline policy, 10 per cent were in the process of developing
a
policy, while only 3 per cent did not have a policy. Most schools reported finding
the pack
useful (Smith and Madsen, 1997).
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
Bullying in Schools 297
Considerable interest developed in peer support, befriending and mediation as
an
approach to bullying. There are benefits to peer helpers and to the school atmosphere
generally; and some victims report more confidence as a result of peer support.
There are
problems too: some hostility to peer helpers from other pupils, and issues of
power sharing
with staff, and ensuring sufficient time and resources for proper implementation
(see
special issue of Journal of Adolescence, volume 22(4), 1999, on ‘Peer-led
interventions’).
The DFE Pack has been updated by the Department for Education and Employment
(DfEE)
and will be re-issued during 2000. An anti-bullying policy of some kind is mandatory
for
schools in England and Wales, since September 1999; Section 61(4)(B) of the School
Standards
and Framework Act 1998 requires that
The Head Teacher shall determine measures (which may include the making of rules,
and
provision for enforcing them) to be taken with a view to . . . (b) encouraging
good behaviour
and respect for others on the part of pupils and, in particular, preventing all
forms of bullying
among pupils.
What do we know now about school bullying?
(1) Measurement and frequency
In the survey following the issue of the DFE Pack (Smith and Madsen, 1997), most
schools
reported that bullying had decreased since they had received the Pack, basing
this on
teacher observations, and logged reports of incidents. However, more valid measures
may
come from asking pupils themselves of their own experiences and observations,
through
interviews or questionnaires.
The ‘Life in School’ booklet has been used considerably in the UK.
It is a 40-item list of
behaviours; pupils fill in whether these happened to them this week (Arora, 1994b).
The
Olweus anonymous self-report questionnaire is the most widely used internationally;
it
incorporates a standard definition of bullying and was modified for use in the
UK (Olweus,
1993; Whitney and Smith, 1993). Smaller-scale studies can use interviews, and
peer nominations;
the latter ask for nominations of classmates who are bullied, or bully others,
and
a recent development allows differentiation of participant roles such as ringleader
bully,
follower, reinforcer, outsider and defender, as well as victim (Salimivalli and
others, 1996).
A few studies have pioneered observations in playgrounds (Boulton, 1995a; Pepler
and
others, 1998).
A large-scale survey in England in 1990 with 6700 pupils, found 27 per cent of
primary
school and 10 per cent of secondary school pupils reported being bullied ‘sometimes’ or
more frequently, while 12 per cent and 6 per cent respectively admitted taking
part in
bullying others (Whitney and Smith, 1993). Other surveys elsewhere suggested
similar
incidence figures (for example, Miller, 1995). More recent surveys (Salmon and
others,
1998; Smith and Shu, 2000) using similar questionnaires, suggest lower incidence
figures
for pupil reports on both being bullied, and bullying others. The later surveys
are of
different schools, so definite conclusions cannot be drawn, but these authors
suggest that
the increased anti-bullying activity in schools and introduction of policies
are responsible.
A Scottish Office study in 1989 found 6 per cent of pupils said that they had
been bullied
298 Peter K. Smith
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
recently ‘sometimes or more often’, and 4 per cent said that they
had bullied others (Mellor,
1990); less than corresponding figures in England at the time. However another
Scottish
study has since reported higher figures (McLean, 1997).
(2) General characteristics of bullying
General findings from many research reports include the following:
, Age differences: self-reports of being bullied decline rather steadily over
the eight to 16
year period; self-reports of bullying others do not show this decline. There
is some shift
with age away from physical bullying, toward indirect and relational bullying.
, Sex differences: boys are more numerous in the bully category, but the sexes
are more
equal in the victim category. Boys practice/experience more physical bullying,
girls
more indirect and relational bullying.
, For those bullied, most of the bullying is done by pupils in the same class
(in primary
schools) or year group (in secondary schools); few are bullied by pupils from
years
below.
, Bullying relationships often involve several bullies, but a significant minority
involves
one-to-one relationships. Boys are bullied by other boys (rarely by girls), but
girls
experience bullying from both sexes.
, A substantial proportion of self-reported victims say that they have not told
a teacher,
or someone at home, about the bullying. The proportion who have not told, increases
with age; this may reflect the more serious nature of victimisation at older
age groups.
, Although most pupils say they do not like bullying, a significant minority
do say they
could join in bullying. Also, these ‘pro-bullying’ or ‘anti-victim’ attitudes
tend to increase
with age up to ages 14 or 15 years (after which they may start to decline).
, The majority of bullying takes place in public areas such as the playground,
the classroom
or corridors; the degree of supervision appears to be of some importance.
, There are large school variations in the incidence of bullying, but factors
such as size of
school, class size or rural versus big city setting are usually not related to
this; effects of
socio-economic deprivation in the catchment area are modest.
, Racist harassment or bullying is a worrying feature in some schools. Children
of nonwhite
ethnic origin experience more racist name-calling (though not necessarily other
forms of bullying) than white children of the same age and gender (Moran and
others,
1993; Boulton, 1995b).
, Sexual harassment and bullying can take complex forms; not only boys bullying
girls,
but girls harassing boys, girls making overt reference to other girls sexual
character or
appearance (Duncan, 1999).
, In secondary schools, Rivers (1995) found that 80 per cent of children of different
sexual
orientation (gay, lesbian) had experienced teasing about their sexual orientation,
and
over half had been physically assaulted or ridiculed by other pupils or teachers.
, Pupils with a disability or special educational needs are at substantially
greater risk of
being victimised (Whitney and others, 1994; Dawkins, 1996). Besides particular
characteristics
related to their learning difficulties or other disabilities which may make them
an obvious ‘target’, children with special needs in integrated settings
may be less well
protected socially, with friends. Some children with behavioural problems may
act out
in an aggressive way and become ‘provocative victims’. Sometimes,
the extra help these
pupils receive in school may stigmatise them (Dawkins, 1996).
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
Bullying in Schools 299
(3) Risk factors at the individual level
One risk factor for being a victim is having few friends, especially friends
who can be
trusted or who are not themselves of low status; and sociometric rejection (dislike
by
peers) (Hodges and others, 1997; Boulton and others, 1999; Pellegrini and others,
1999).
Interacting with this are pupil characteristics such as shyness, and poor coping
strategies.
Pupils adopt a variety of coping strategies when bullied. The success of these
varies, and
is age- and gender-dependent, but non-assertive strategies such as crying are
less successful
than ignoring or seeking help (Kochenderfer and Ladd, 1997). The success of telling
teachers depends on the school context (Smith and Shu, 2000).
There is evidence that some victims come from over-protective or enmeshed families
(Ladd and Ladd, 1998). An over-protective family may not help a child develop
assertive
social skills and coping strategies to deal with minor teasings and provocations,
so that
they become more of a target for bullying (Smith and Myron-Wilson, 1998).
Children who bully others may be hot-tempered, and come from families lacking
warmth,
in which violence is common, and discipline inconsistent (Olweus, 1993). Fathers
who
were aggressive and bullying at school are likely to have sons who were bullying
at school
(Farrington, 1993). Children who are both bullies and victims, or are aggressive
victims,
may come from particularly troubled or abusive families (Schwartz and others,
1997).
Although some bullying children may lack social skills, ringleader bullies may
have good
‘
theory of mind’ abilities and be skilled social manipulators (Sutton and
others, 1999).
Some findings are that bullies are not low in self-esteem, or if they are, this
is mainly for
measures (such as ‘behavioural self-worth’) directly related to antisocial
behaviour.
(4) Consequences of being bullied
Being bullied leads to difficulties in concentrating on school work, and increased
absenteeism
(Sharp, 1995); it correlates with depression, anxiety and low self-esteem (Hawker
and Boulton, 2000). Williams and others (1996) found associations with not sleeping
well,
bed wetting, feeling sad, and experiencing more than occasional headaches and
stomach
aches. School doctors and nurses may be presented with symptoms due to bullying;
the
implications of this for school health services are discussed by Dawkins (1995).
Action taken against school bullying: monitored interventions
Examples of monitored interventions range from case studies of particular schools
to
larger-scale projects. The pioneer example is the first Norwegian campaign of
1983, instigated
nationwide by the Ministry of Education. A two-year evaluation of the project
as it
affected schools in Bergen found reductions of some 50 per cent in reports of
being bullied
(Olweus, 1993). In Bergen, schools got extra help from the research team; this
was not the
case in Stavanger, where a three-year evaluation found rather little effect (Roland,
1993).
In the UK, a case study of a whole-school programme against bullying in a secondary
school (Arora, 1994a) included increased liaison with parents, increased supervision
of
300 Peter K. Smith
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
breaks, review of the pastoral care curriculum to incorporate anti-bullying work;
and
development of a non-punitive sanctions policy. Using the ‘Life in School’ booklet,
a
reduction of around 20 per cent in levels of bullying was found.
The DFE Anti-Bullying Project (1991–4) worked with 23 schools in Sheffield.
All schools
were asked to develop a whole school policy on bullying; and were supported in
their
choice of a range of interventions covering curriculum work (drama, video, quality
circles);
working with individuals and small groups (Pikas method, assertiveness training);
and
playground work (playground environment, training for lunchtime supervisors).
After
four school terms, the primary schools achieved an average 17 per cent reduction
in the
number of pupils reporting being bullied and 7 per cent reduction in the pupils
who
reported bullying others. In the secondary schools the reductions were smaller,
around 5
per cent, but there were substantial increases in the proportion of bullied pupils
who told
a teacher about it (mean 32%) and in the proportion of bullying pupils who said
someone
had talked to them about it (mean 38 per cent). Schools which put more time and
effort
into anti-bullying measures, and which consulted widely in whole school policy
development,
had the best outcomes. Success in taking action required the commitment of at
least one member of staff as coordinator, and the clear support of senior management
(Smith and Sharp, 1994; Thompson and Sharp, 1994).
A follow-up of some of the Sheffield project primary schools (Eslea and Smith,
1998) found
difficulties as well as opportunities facing schools in anti-bullying work. Of
four schools
followed up in detail a year after the project had finished, two had reduced
bullying
further, in one there was little change, and in one it had got worse again. A
relevant factor
was the extent to which the policy was ‘kept alive’ once initial
project involvement had
finished. Another conclusion was that girls’ bullying, while less frequent
that boys’, may
be more difficult to tackle; boys’ bullying had continued to fall in all
four schools, but
girls’ bullying only in one.
The Safer Schools–Safer Cities programme funded a project in Wolverhampton
in 15
schools (1991–4), with intervention similar to that in the Sheffield project.
An adaptation
of the ‘Life in School’ booklet was used for evaluation. Reductions
in bullying were rather
small; of the order of 1 per cent to 4 per cent in the five secondary schools
(Smith, 1997;
Arora, 1994a). This project provided the video for use with the DFE pack Don’t
Suffer in
Silence.
The Police Research Group of the Home Office funded a project carried out in
deprived
inner city areas in London and Liverpool (1991–3). In each area, one primary
school and
one secondary school took part, and a staff-student anti-bullying working party
was set
up. The primary schools included a video and peer support programme; the secondary
schools used assertiveness training and conflict mediation skills (Pitts and
Smith, 1995).
Self reports of being bullied decreased in both primary schools, by up to 40
per cent;
attitudes improved, and teachers and lunchtime supervisors were perceived as
doing
more about bullying. Bullying also reduced in the Liverpool secondary school,
by about
20 per cent; but in the London secondary school it increased by around 7 per
cent; this
school was affected by an increase in racial tension in the neighbourhood during
this
period. The surrounding community may be an important factor in school bullying
(Randall,
1996).
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
Bullying in Schools 301
Astudy based at Keele (Glover and others, 1998) has documented processes of intervention
and change in 25 secondary schools; schools used a range of intervention and
consideration
is also given to the impact on pupil attitudes.
Future perspectives
In the UK, the new legal requirements on schools are a positive step; having
a wholeschool
policy—an agreed, disseminated framework for action if bullying occurs—seems
essential. However, policies also need to be implemented effectively, and periodically
renewed. The continuing media interest, and the greater awareness of parents
and pupils
of their rights in this issue, may help to continue pressure on schools to take
bullying
seriously.
More knowledge and more resources are available to schools and teachers in the
UK, and
progress has been made to reduce bullying, following procedures that have been
evaluated.
However, we still need to know more about how best to help schools, families
and pupils.
There is promise in developing curriculum approaches and peer support schemes
to
harness the feelings of the majority of the peer group against bullying—an
approach
currently forming an important part of a second wave of interventions in Norway
(Roland,
2000); but there are difficulties too, and we have much to learn about how to
do this
effectively (Cowie, 1999). Developing assertiveness training and befriending
schemes
hold promise for helping potential and actual victims of bullying to become less
at risk.
Meanwhile, interventions with families and the wider context of parenting skills
are
relevant to tackling the issue of some children who are persistent in their bullying
behaviours.
Schools exist as part of a wider community, and the problem is not theirs alone.
However, bullying, which had been almost a taboo topic for decades, is now much
more
openly discussed. Schools are more willing to admit it can be a problem, more
willing to
tackle it with the resources now available and with the incentive of OFSTED inspections
and possible legal actions. There are signs that school anti-bullying work is
having some
impact. Persistent and concerted action, combined with further research, holds
the promise
of considerably reducing the problem of school bullying, and thereby enhancing
the rights,
happiness and welfare of pupils in the future.
References
Adams A. 1992. Bullying at Work. Virago Press: London.
Arora CMJ. 1994a. Is there any point in trying to reduce bullying in secondary
schools? Educational
Psychology in Practice 10: 155–162.
Arora T. 1994b. Measuring bullying with the ‘Life in School’ checklist.
Pastoral Care in Education 12:
11–15.
Besag V. 1992. We don’t have bullies here! 57 Manor House Road, Jesmond,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE2 2LY.
Boulton MJ. 1995a. Playground behaviour and peer interaction patterns of primary
school boys
classified as bullies, victims and not involved. British Journal of Educational
Psychology 65: 165–
177.
Boulton MJ. 1995b. Patterns of bully/victim problems in mixed race groups of
children. Social
Development 4: 277–293.
Boulton MJ, Trueman M, Chau C, Whitehand C, Amatya K. 1999. Concurrent and longitudinal
links
302 Peter K. Smith
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
between friendship and peer victimization: implications for befriending interventions.
Journal of
Adolescence 22: 461–466.
Cowie H. 1999. Peers helping peers: interventions, initiatives and insights.
Journal of Adolescence 22:
433–436.
Dawkins JL. 1995. Bullying in school: doctors’ responsibilities. British
Medical Journal 310: 274–275.
Dawkins JL. 1996. Bullying, physical disability and the paediatric patient. Developmental
Medicine
and Child Neurology 38: 603–612.
Department for Education. 1994. Bullying: Don’t Suffer in Silence. An Anti-bullying
Pack for Schools.
HMSO: London.
Department of Education and Science. 1989. Discipline in Schools: Report of the
Committee Chaired by
Lord Elton. HMSO: London.
Duncan N. 1999. Sexual Bullying: Gender Conflict and Pupil Culture in Secondary
Schools. Routledge:
London.
Elliott M (ed). 1991. Bullying: a Practical Guide to Coping for Schools. Longman:
Harlow.
Encarta World English Dictionary. 1999. Bloomsbury: London.
Eslea M, Smith PK. 1998. The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in
primary schools.
Educational Research 40: 203–218.
Farrington D. 1993. Understanding and preventing bullying. In Crime and Justice:
a Review of Research,
Tonry M (ed.). Vol. 17. University of Chicago Press: Chicago; 381–458.
Glover D, Cartwright N, Gleeson D. 1998. Towards Bully-free Schools: Interventions
in Action. Open
University Press: Buckingham.
Hawker DSJ, Boulton MJ. 2000. Twenty years research on peer victimization and
psychosocial
maladjustment: a meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of
Child Psychiatry and
Psychiatry 41.
Hodges EVE, Malone MJ, Perry DG. 1997. Individual risk and social risk as interacting
determinants
of victimisation in the peer group. Developmental Psychology 33: 1032–1039.
Ireland J, Archer J. 1996. Descriptive analysis of bullying in male and female
adult prisoners. Journal
of Community and Applied Social Psychology 6: 35–47.
Johnstone M, Munn P, Edwards L. 1992. Action against bullying: A support pack
for schools. SCRE:
Edinburgh.
Kochenderfer BJ, Ladd GW. 1997. Victimized children’s responses to peers’ aggression:
behaviors
associated with reduced versus continued victimization. Development and Psychopathology
9: 59–
73.
Ladd GW, Ladd BK. 1998. Parenting behaviors and parent-child relationships: correlates
of peer
victimization in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology 34: 1450–1458.
La Fontaine J. 1991. Bullying: the child’s view. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation:
London.
McLean A. 1997. Bullyproofing our school: what do the pupils think? Topic, issue
17. NFER.
McLeod M, Morris S. 1996. Why me? Children talking to ChildLine about bullying.
ChildLine, Royal
Mail Building, Studd Street, London N1 0QW.
Mellor A. 1990. Bullying in Scottish secondary schools. Spotlight 23. SCRE: Edinburgh.
Mellor A. 1993. Bullying and how to fight it: A guide for families. SCRE: Edinburgh.
Miller A. 1995. Young people and bullying. John Moores University Consumer Research:
Liverpool.
Moran S, Smith PK, Thompson D, Whitney I. 1993. Ethnic differences in experiences
of bullying:
Asian and white children. British Journal of Educational Psychology 63: 431–440.
Morita Y, Soeda H, Soeda K, Taki M. 1999. Japan. In The Nature of School Bullying:
A Cross-National
Perspective, Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds).
Routledge:
London and New York.
Munn P. 1993. School action against bullying: Involving parents and non-teaching
staff. SCRE: Edinburgh.
Olweus D. 1978. Agression in the schools: Bullies and whipping boys. Hemisphere:
Washington, DC.
Olweus D. 1993. Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell:
Oxford.
Olweus D. 1999. Sweden. In The Nature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective,
Smith PK,
Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds). Routledge: London
and New York.
Pellegrini AD, Bartini M, Brooks F. 1999. School bullies, victims, and aggressive
victims: factors
relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal
of Educational Psychology
91: 216–224.
Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 14,
294–303 (2000)
Bullying in Schools 303
Pepler DJ, Craig WM, Roberts WL. 1998. Observations of aggressive and nonaggressive
children on
the school playground. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 44: 55–76.
Pitts J, Smith P. 1995. Preventing school bullying. Home Office Police Research
Group, 50 Queen
Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AT.
Randall PE. 1996. A community approach to bullying. Trentham Books: Stoke-on-Trent.
Rivers I. 1995. Mental health issues among young lesbians and gay men bullied
in school. Health and
Social Care in the Community 3: 380–383.
Robinson B, Maines G. 1997. Crying for help: the No Blame approach to bullying.
Lucky Duck Publishing,
34 Wellington Park, Clifton, Bristol BS8 2UW.
Roland E. 1993. Bullying: A developing tradition of research and management.
In Understanding and
managing bullying, Tattum D (ed.). Heinemann Educational: Oxford.
Roland E. 2000. Bullying in school: three national innovations in Norwegian schools
in 15 years.
Aggressive Behavior 26: 135–143.
Salmivalli C, Lagerspetz K, Bjo¨rkqvist K, O¨
sterman K, Kaukiainen A. 1996. Bullying as a group
process: participant roles and their relations to social status within the group.
Aggressive Behavior
22: 1–15.
Salmon G, James A, Smith DM. 1998. Bullying in schools: self reported anxiety,
depression and self
esteem in secondary school children. British Medical Journal 317: 924–925.
Schwartz D, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. 1997. The early socialization of aggressive
victims of
bullying. Child Development 68: 665–675.
Sharp S. 1995. How much does bullying hurt? The effects of bullying on the personal
well-being
and educational progress of secondary aged students. Educational and Child Psychology
12: 81–88.
Skinner A. 1992, 2nd edition 1996. Bullying: An annotated bibliography of literature
and resources. Youth
Work Press, 17–23 Albion Street, Leicester LE1 6GD.
Smith G. 1997. The ‘Safer Schools—Safer Cities’ bullying project.
In Bullying: home, school and
community, Tattum D, Herbert G (eds). David Fulton: London; 99–113.
Smith PK, Madsen M. 1997. A follow-up Survey of the DFE Anti-Bullying Pack for
Schools: Its use,
and the development of anti-bullying work in schools. DfEE: London.
Smith PK, Myron-Wilson R. 1998. Parenting and school bullying. Clincial Child
Psychology and
Psychiatry 3: 405–417.
Smith PK, Sharp S (eds). 1994. School bullying: Insights and perspectives. Routledge:
London.
Smith PK, Shu S. 2000. What good schools can do about bullying: findings from
a survey in English
schools after a decade of research and action. Childhood 7: 193–212.
Smith PK, Morita Y, Junger-Tas J, Olweus D, Catalano R, Slee P (eds). 1999. The
Nature of School
Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. Routledge: London and New York.
Sutton J, Smith PK, Swettenham J. 1999. Social cognition and bullying: social
inadequacy or skilled
manipulation? British Journal of Developmental Psychology 17.
Tattum DP, Herbert G. 1990. Bullying—a positive response. Faculty of Education,
South Glamorgan
Institute of Higher Education, Cyncoed Road, Cardiff CF2 6XD.
Tattum DP, Tattum E, Herbert G. 1993. Cycle of violence. Drake Educational Associates:
Cardiff.
Thompson D, Sharp S (with Rose D, Ellis M). 1994. Improving schools: Establishing
and integrating
whole school behaviour policies. David Fulton: London.
Whitney I, Smith PK. 1993. A survey of the nature and extent of bully/victim
problems in junior/
middle and secondary schools. Educational Research 35: 3–25.
Whitney I, Smith PK, Thompson D. 1994. Bullying and children with special educational
needs. In
School bullying: Insights and perspectives, Smith PK, Sharp S (eds). Routledge:
London; 213–240.
Williams K, Chambers M, Logan S, Robinson D. 1996. Association of common health
symptoms
with bullying in primary school children. British Medical Journal 313: 17–19.
Contributor’s details
Peter K. Smith, Professor and Head, Unit of School and Family Studies, Goldsmiths
College, London,
has researched extensively on school bullying, and is co-ordinator of a European
Commission
funded project on The Nature and Prevention of Bullying.