research question about bullying and academic performance

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

How Can Bullying Victimisation Lead to Lower Academic Achievement? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Mediating Role of Cognitive-Motivational Factors

Muthanna samara.

1 Department of Psychology, Kingston University London, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames KT1 2EE, UK; [email protected] (A.E.-A.); moc.liamtoh@adummaharas (S.H.)

Bruna Da Silva Nascimento

2 Department of Psychology, Brunel University London, London UB8 3PH, UK; [email protected]

Aiman El-Asam

Sara hammuda, nabil khattab.

3 Department of Sociology, Doha Institute, Doha, Zone 70, Qatar; [email protected]

Associated Data

Data is contained within the article and supplementary material .

Bullying involvement may have an adverse effect on children’s educational outcomes, particularly academic achievement. However, the underlying mechanisms and factors behind this association are not well-understood. Previous meta-analyses have not investigated mediation factors between bullying and academic achievement. This meta-analysis examines the mediation effect of cognitive-motivational factors on the relationship between peer victimization and academic achievement. A systematic search was performed using specific search terms and search engines to identify relevant studies that were selected according to specific criteria resulting in 11 studies encompassing a sample total of 257,247 children (10 years and younger) and adolescents (11 years and older) (48–59% female). Some studies were longitudinal and some cross sectional and the assessment for each factor was performed by various methods (self, peer, teacher, school and mixed reports). Children involved in bullying behaviour were less likely to be academically engaged (k = 4) (OR = 0.571, 95% CI [0.43, 0.77], p = 0.000), to be less motivated (k = 7) (OR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.69, 0.97], p = 0.021), to have lower self-esteem (k = 1) (OR = 0.12, 95% CI [0.07, 0.20], p = 0.000) and lower academic achievement (k = 14) (OR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.49, 0.79], p = 0.000). Bullying involvement was also significantly related to overall cognitive-motivational factors (k = 17, OR = 0.67, 95% CI [0.59, 0.76], p = 0.000). Cognitive-motivational factors, taken together, mediated the association between bullying victimisation and academic achievement (k = 8, OR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.72, 0.77), p = 0.000). Bullying victimisation was negatively related to cognitive-motivational factors, which, in turn, was associated with poorer academic achievement. These findings were moderated by the design of the studies, assessment methods for the bullying reports, mediators and outcomes, country, age of children in the sample and/or types of bullying. The findings are of relevance for practitioners, parents, and schools, and can be used to guide bullying interventions. Interventions should focus on improving internal and external motivational factors including components of positive reinforcement, encouragement, and programs for enhancing academic engagement and achievement amongst children and adolescents.

1. Introduction

Involvement in bullying has been associated with short and long-term negative consequences including physical health issues and behavioural and emotional problems [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Such consequences also vary according to the role played in the bullying experience and whether the child is a victim, a perpetrator, or both (bully–victim). Externalising problems such as hyperactivity and conduct disorder have been typically reported among bullies, whereas internalising problems such as anxiety and mood disorders have been mainly observed among victims (e.g., [ 4 , 5 ]). In turn, bully–victims experience a more severe combination of internalising and externalising problems in comparison to victims or bullies only [ 1 , 6 , 7 ].

Bullying is prevalent in the school context and as such, on top of its consequences for mental health, bullying involvement has also been found to have a negative impact on children’s educational outcomes, particularly academic performance [ 8 ]. For example, a study in Norway demonstrated that bullying involvement in adolescents was associated with lower academic grades at an individual and school level [ 9 ]. In the United States, these findings were confirmed in a nationally representative sample of 7,304 students, after controlling for poverty, school size, and personal victimisation [ 10 ]. In a meta-analytical review of 33 studies, Nakamoto and Schwartz [ 8 ] confirmed the negative association between bullying victimisation and academic performance. Liu et al. [ 11 ] in a longitudinal study found that being bullied in 3rd grade predicted poor academic outcomes in 5th grade. In another longitudinal study, Juvonen et al. [ 12 ] found that for each 1-point (out of 4-point scale) increase in self-perceived victimisation, students’ Grade Point Average (GPA) decreased by 0.3-grade points. Wang et al. [ 13 ] also found that for every 1-point (out of 5-point scale) increase in peer victimisation, students’ GPA decreased by 0.44 units. Similar findings were noted by Van der Werf [ 14 ] who studied the effect of bullying on academic achievement. It was found that a 1 standard deviation (SD) increase in school bullying incidents resulted in a 0.55 SD standardised test score decrease in the short-term and 0.4 SD decrease in the long-term (two years) for affected students.

As well as being repeatedly associated with poor academic achievement (e.g., [ 8 , 15 , 16 ]), bullying victimisation has been associated with low self-esteem [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], low educational motivation [ 21 ], reduced academic self-concept (reading and mathematics) and lower commitment to study, and higher extrinsic motivation and test anxiety rates [ 22 ]. Some studies also found a negative association between peer victimisation and academic self-efficacy [ 23 ] and self-concept [ 24 ]. In addition, children who are victimised by their peers tend to have negative attitudes toward school [ 25 ], negative perceptions of school climate [ 13 , 26 ], and difficulties concentrating on school work [ 27 ].

Although the negative association between bullying and academic performance has been well documented, the underlying mechanism for this association is yet to be fully understood. Among the various mechanisms that may link bullying victimisation with academic achievement, cognitive–motivational variables such as academic motivation and aspirations have been recognised as important, but as yet under-researched, domains. For the purpose of this study, academic motivation is defined as the student’s interest and desire to engage in their school and learning activities [ 28 ], whilst academic aspirations are a student’s educational goals and choices [ 29 ]. In fact, students with high academic motivations and aspirations tend to succeed academically [ 30 ]. However, bullying victimisation has been found to reduce students’ motivations and aspirations [ 21 , 31 ]. As such, motivation and aspirations offer a plausible mediational path between bullying victimisation and academic achievement. Thus, this study aims to explore and review the literature that has investigated the indirect effect of bullying victimisation on academic achievement through cognitive-motivational variables, particularly academic motivation and aspirations.

1.1. Bullying Victimisation, Cognitive-Motivational Factors, and Academic Achievement

The expectancy-value theory [ 32 , 33 ] and the achievement goal theory [ 34 , 35 ] propose that individuals are more likely to engage in a particular task when such a task has some value to them and when they believe they are likely to do well. From this perspective, cognitive–motivational factors such as academic motivation and aspirations play an important role in explaining academic achievement. Consistent with this view, previous studies have demonstrated that students with higher motivation and higher aspirations are more likely to succeed academically than those with low motivation and low aspirations (e.g., [ 30 , 36 , 37 ]). Given that motivation and aspirations are important mechanisms for academic success, understanding how these factors can buffer against the damaging implications of bullying victimisation for academic achievement would be informative for the development of intervention programs.

The Self-Determination Theory (SDT) [ 38 ] offers a useful framework to understand the association between bullying victimisation and cognitive–motivational factors such as motivation and aspirations in the educational context. SDT postulates that relatedness, autonomy, and competence are three important factors to maintain positive well-being. Relatedness refers to the need for being connected to others [ 39 ], autonomy refers to the need for self-endorsement of an individual’s behaviour [ 40 ], whereas competence refers to the need for achieving attained goals [ 38 ]. From this perspective, in order to feel motivated and achieve their highest academic potential, all these three needs must be supported in students. Negative school conditions such as peer rejection, social exclusion, and bullying may undermine these needs [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

In fact, bullying victimisation has been found to negatively influence students’ school relatedness, such that bullied students tend to feel less connected to their school and, in turn, tend to achieve poorly academically [ 43 ]. On top of this, students who have suffered bullying victimisation present lower academic motivation, reduced perceived academic competence [ 21 ] and lower educational aspirations [ 31 ] in comparison to their non-bullied peers. These consequences may also be long-lasting. For example, Goodboy et al. [ 44 ] found that students who were bullied in high school presented a low level of self-determined motivation, high levels of amotivation, and emotional, social, and institutional problems in their first semesters at university, which is likely to affect their academic achievement. Studies exploring the mechanism behind the association between bullying and academic achievement have found that bullying victimisation leads to higher psychological distress, which in turn reduces student engagement leading to lower academic achievement [ 45 ]. Fan and Dempsey [ 46 ], while controlling for gender and socioeconomic status, found that students that are victimised by their peers report lower academic motivation and self-efficacy, which results in lower academic achievement. Taken together these findings suggest that bullying victimisation reduces academic achievement by decreasing students’ motivation and aspirations.

1.2. The Present Study

Meta-analysis studies have demonstrated a negative association between bullying and academic achievement [ 8 ]; however, these studies fail to identify the potential underlying mechanisms for this association. In order to design effective intervention strategies to minimise the impact of bullying on academic achievement, there is a need for studies that investigate the mediators and mechanisms of this relationship. The factors linking bullying with academic achievement have only been tested empirically to a limited extent (e.g., [ 45 , 46 ]). However, an explanation for a phenomenon cannot emerge from the findings of a single study. Therefore, the main aim of this meta-analysis is to address this gap and identify and quantify the extent to which cognitive–motivational factors such as motivation and aspirations mediate the association between bullying involvement and academic achievement. In addition, although the academic achievement of bullies and bully–victims are also generally lower than that of those uninvolved in bullying, meta-analytical studies have mainly focused on bullying victimisation (e.g., [ 8 ]). Thus, this meta-analysis also aims to identify whether bullying subgroips and type of bullying involvement plays a role in the association between bullying, motivation and aspirations, and academic achievement.

Therefore, the current study will focus on addressing the gaps in the literature regarding the indirect effect of bullying involvement of all types on academic achievement through motivation and aspiration factors in children and adolescents. We hypothesise that the relationship between bullying victimisation and lower academic achievement is mediated by cognitive-motivational factors.

2. Materials and Methods

The meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines [ 47 ] ( Supplementary Table S1 ).

2.1. Information Sources and Database Search

A literature search of all studies on bullying and academic motivation or aspirations, and bullying and academic achievement, published between January 2000 and January 2020, was undertaken. The following databases were selected as they incorporate pertinent disciplines. These include CINAHL (Current Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Education Abstract, Education Research Complete, ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), PsychInfo, PubMed, and Web of Science. To identify all published and unpublished studies empirically analysing school bullying, academic achievement, and motivation and aspiration factors, we conducted systematic searchers by combining three different sets of keywords. The first set of keywords comprised terms describing “education” (i.e., education* OR academic* OR school), while the second set of keywords comprised terms describing achievement (i.e., achievement OR performance OR attainment OR success* OR motivation OR aspiration*), and the third group of keywords described “bullying” (i.e., bully* OR victim* OR bullied*). Studies were then selected based on specific inclusion and exclusion (see below). Both published and unpublished articles were selected and then further coded according to the variables examined by each study. More specifically, the studies were divided into: (1) studies that looked at mediation factors between bullying and academic achievement; (2) studies that looked at the association between bullying and academic achievement; and (3) studies that looked at the association between bullying and motivation or aspiration. Some studies belonged to more than one group. The final included mediation studies are the ones for which we could calculate the mediation.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria and Study Selection

2.2.1. inclusion criteria.

The inclusion criteria required that the study examine the link between bullying involvement, academic motivation or aspiration, and academic achievement in the same study. Second, the methodology had to be of a quantitative nature. Third, studies relating to traditional bullying (i.e., face-to-face bullying), including relational (i.e., purposeful damage and manipulation of peer relationships leading to social exclusion, spreading rumours) and/or direct bullying (i.e., physical such as hitting and pushing, and verbal such as making fun or insulting someone), and cyberbullying (i.e., bullying through digital electronic communication tools) were all included. Studies that referred to specific forms of bullying such as bullying focused on sexual orientation, where sexuality or gender are used against another person, were also included. Although the main aim of the study is to look at the mediation effect, those studies that did not necessarily explore mediation factors for the relationship between bullying and academic achievement, but that looked at either academic achievement or motivation or aspirations separately, were also retained. Fourth, the measures of bullying relationships, outcomes and mediators had to have been conducted through observational studies and/or various reporting methods (self, teacher, peer or school). Fifth, sufficient statistical information needed to be available in the study or provided by the authors for effect size calculation (e.g., means and standard deviations, odds ratio with 95% Confidence Interval, correlations, event rates and sample size, etc.). Sixth, participants needed to be children or adolescents (under 18 years of age). Lastly, articles in English, Portuguese, and Spanish were included.

2.2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Studies that were qualitative, retrospective, intervention-based, meta-analyses or exclusively examined a clinical population were not included. Reference lists from meta-analyses studies were examined in order to ensure all relevant studies had been included.

2.3. Coding

There were two independent coders that categorised variables as relevant and any disparities were discussed and duly revised. Based on the search result, the studies were allocated to three categories: mediation studies, studies on academic achievement, and studies on cognitive-motivational factors. No studies that looked at the association between bullying and aspirations and academic achievement were found.

2.4. Coding of Study Characteristics and Moderators

The percentage by gender and age range of the participants were extracted from each study. One study [ 48 ] provided the school grade of the children instead of the age range and this was converted into age range according to the school system in the respective country that the study was performed in. The age was then categorised into childhood (5–10 years of age) and adolescence (11–18 years of age) or mix of both. The age range of the study that reported the grade will not be affected even if some students have repeated one year or more as this study was put in the adolescence group and repeating years would still have put these students in that category. The age category of the participants; the assessment method (child-report, peer-report, peer nomination, teacher-report, school-report, or mixed) of the predictor (bullying), the outcome (academic achievement) and the mediator (cognitive-motivational); the type of bullying (traditional, relational, general and cyber bullying, or mixed); bullying subgroups (bullies, victims, and bully/victims); the country in which the study was conducted; and the design of the studies (cross sectional vs. longitudinal) were all included in the meta-analysis as potential moderators.

Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) [ 49 ] was used to perform the analysis. Some articles did not report some of the essential data for the analysis of the indirect effect of bullying on academic achievement [ 15 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. Studies whose authors were uncontactable or who did not reply to the initial email and the reminders within two-weeks were not included in the mediation analysis. However, because these papers reported univariate associations between both bullying and academic achievement and bullying and cognitive-motivational factors, they were included in the univariate meta-analysis.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

2.5.1. summary measures.

The extracted data was presented in a range of formats (e.g., correlations, odds ratios, log odds ratio, means and standard deviations). The adopted effect size format for the pooled effect size of each meta-analysis was Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals for each study, which was evaluated against the overall weighted effect size. A random effect model was used where the within and between study variability is taken into account, and thus is more generalisable than the fixed effects model [ 4 , 53 ].

For the studies that provided multiple effect sizes for the same variable (e.g., child-report and peer-report), the aggregated mean was calculated. This is to avoid duplication of results for the same samples. In addition, the weight, which is the inverse of variance, of each study will be shown in each meta-analysis. This will give the precision of each study [ 49 ].

2.5.2. Heterogeneity and Moderators Analysis

The presence of significant heterogeneity indicates that variations in effect sizes is due to specific factors and moderators rather than errors in sampling ( Qb ). I 2 was used to measure the variability across studies [ 54 ] where values above 75% indicate that the variance between studies is due to moderators, while values below 25% are due to random error [ 55 ]. Moderator analyses were performed for categorical variables using ANOVAs for all moderators (design, assessment method for each variable, age, country, bullying types and subgroups) separately for each predictive model (bullying–motivational factors; bullying–academic achievement; and the mediation effect of motivational factors between bullying and academic achievement).

2.5.3. Publication Bias

Four methods were used to calculate publication bias, each method giving a different indication. First, the Rosenthal’s Failsafe Number [ 56 ] will specify the number of further studies that need to be published in order to nullify the significant results. If the reported Failsafe N exceeds the outcome of the equation 10 (5k + 10) (k: number of reported studies) then the results are not biased [ 57 ]. Secondly, the Begg and Mazumbar Rank Correlation Test (Kendall’s tau b) [ 58 ] examines study sample size where small studies and large effect sizes indicate large variances. Thus, no publication bias means that the relationship between the effect size and variance is not significant. Like correlation, Kendall tau b with a value of zero indicates no correlation and the deviation from zero means that there is an association [ 59 ]. Thirdly, the Egger’s test [ 60 ] uses linear regression to calculate deviations from zero in the funnel plot. The higher the deviation from zero the larger the systematic difference between larger and smaller studies. Finally, Duval and Tweedie’s Trim and Fill Test [ 61 ] removes asymmetric studies from one side in order to identify the unbiased effect. These studies are then reinserted to create a symmetric funnel plot, and then an adjusted effect size is calculated for this symmetric plot [ 62 ]. The deviation between effects sizes will give an indication of the severity of publication bias.

One study removal analysis was also performed for each meta-analysis to show whether any study’s removal would affect the significance level of the pooled effect size.

3.1. Search Results

EndNote program [ 63 ] was used for importing studies from different databases. The first databases search produced 401 articles. Duplicates and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were removed firstly according to titles and abstracts and then according to full text reviews. All reference lists in the included articles and meta-analyses were also reviewed. The final number of articles that investigated the three main factors (bullying, one cognitive–motivational factor and academic achievement) and were included in the meta-analysis was 11 ( Figure 1 ).

Description of the systematic search stages.

3.2. Study Characteristics

The 11 studies included 257,247 children and adolescents (number ranged between 140–235,064) aged between 5 and 17 years-old ( Table 1 ). All studies included both genders, such that 52.07% of the participants included in the meta-analysis were female. Most studies only looked at bullying victimisation (N = 7), whereas two studies also reported findings on victims, bullies, and bully–victims, and one study reported findings on both bullies and victims. Additionally, most studies were cross-sectional (N = 6), and were conducted in North America (N = 8) and Europe (N = 3).

Study characteristics for the studies included in the meta-analysis.

* For longitudinal studies the duration of the study is mentioned between brackets. † Definitions: traditional bullying included face-to-face bullying including relational bullying (i.e., purposeful damage and manipulation of peer relationships leading to social exclusion, spreading rumours) and direct bullying (i.e., physical such as hitting, pushing, and verbal such as making fun, insulting someone); cyberbullying included bullying through digital electronic communication; general bullying included violence and intimidation based on peer nomination of up to three students in the class that are perpetrators based on three items (starts fights, says unpleasant things, and gets upset easily) and victims (gets teased, gets picked on, gets pushed or hit). ‡ The predictor (bullying) and the mediator variables were measured through standardised measures in all studies. Academic achievement was measured either through the students’ self-report GPA, or through schools’ or teachers’ reports.

Among the studies included in the meta-analysis, only one study directly tested the indirect effect of bullying on academic achievement through motivation that also included data on academic engagement [ 46 ]. In addition, seven studies tested the indirect effect of bullying on academic achievement through academic engagement, academic self-concept, self-esteem, or psychological distress [ 45 , 46 , 48 , 50 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. These variables reflect students’ general motivation levels and thus we decided to include them in this meta-analysis, referring to them as cognitive-motivational factors. One study [ 50 ] did not test the indirect effect of victimisation on academic achievement, but because the direct effect of bullying on academic engagement and the direct effect of engagement on academic achievement were provided, we used these coefficients to calculate the indirect effect of victimisation on academic achievement. Therefore, seven studies (eight mediation results) were included in the meta-analysis of the indirect effect of bullying on academic achievement through cognitive-motivational factors. There were an additional four studies [ 15 , 51 , 52 , 67 ] that did not test mediation nor provide data that allowed for the calculation of the indirect effect. However, because such studies looked at both the association between bullying and academic achievement and bullying and motivational factors, we decided to present their effect size findings in the meta-analysis.

The informant regarding bullying, academic achievement, and cognitive-motivational factors was also reported (children, peers, school-report or a mixture of respondents and methods). Most papers (N = 9) relied on children’s self-reports to assess bullying, whereas a limited number of studies used peer nomination (N = 1), and mixed informants (N = 1). In turn, most studies relied on teacher-report or school-report to assess academic achievement (N = 6), whereas the remaining studies used children’s self-reports (N = 5). For motivational factors (mediator), most studies relied on children’s self-reports (N = 5), whereas two relied on teacher-report and the rest of the studies did not report (N = 4).

3.3. Bullying and Victimisation as Predictors of Motivational Factors and Academic Achievement: Meta-Analysis

The studies that included motivational factors as mediators as well as academic achievement as an outcome were included in the analysis. Some studies looked at cognitive–motivational factors and academic achievement separately without calculating the mediation effects (N = 5), which were excluded from the analysis.

Firstly, we will present the analysis of the relationship between bullying involvement and cognitive-motivational factors. Secondly, the analysis of the relationship between bullying involvement and academic achievement will be presented and finally we will present the mediation effect of motivational factors on the relationship between bullying involvement and academic achievement. For all categories, a pooled effect size across studies of Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated.

3.3.1. Motivational Factors

The combined effect size showed that children who are involved in any bullying behaviour were significantly less likely to be academically engaged (k = 4) (OR = 0.571, 95% CI (0.43, 0.77), p = 0.000), to have less motivation (k = 7) (OR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.69, 0.97), p = 0.021), and to have lower self-esteem (k = 1) (OR = 0.12, 95% CI (0.07, 0.20), p = 0.000). However, neither self-concept (k = 3) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.53, 1.03), p = 0.072) nor self-efficacy (k = 2) (OR = 0.73, 95% CI (0.41, 1.27), p = 0.264) were significantly associated with bullying involvement. The heterogeneity assessments were significant for all except self-esteem (academic engagement: Q (3) = 14.39, p = 0.002; I 2 = 79.16%; motivation: and Q (6) = 119.05, p = 0.000; I 2 = 94.96%; self-concept: Q (2) = 21.78, p = 0.000; I 2 = 90.82%; self-efficacy: Q (1) = 5.64, p = 0.018; I 2 = 82.27%). The pooled effect size for the overall cognitive–motivational factors was significant (k = 17; OR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.59, 0.76), p = 0.000) with a significant heterogeneity between groups ( Q (16) = 442.71, p = 0.000; I 2 = 96.39%) (See Figure 2 ).

Meta-analysis for the relationship between bullying involvement and cognitive-motivational factors.

As for victims only, they were also significantly less likely to be motivated (k = 4) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.61, 0.89), p = 0.002). The pooled effect size for the overall cognitive-motivational factors for victims only was significant (k = 13) (OR = 0.63, 95% CI (0.55, 0.72), p = 0.000) with a significant heterogeneity between groups ( Q (12) = 424.96, p = 0.000; I 2 = 97.18%). On the other hand, the results for bullies only were not significant in relation to motivation (k = 2) (OR = 1.03, 95% CI (0.84, 1.27), p = 0.762). Figure 2 shows other individual relationships for each bullying subgroup ( Figure 2 ).

3.3.2. Academic Achievement

The combined pooled effect size showed that children who are involved in bullying behaviour were significantly more likely to have low academic achievement (k = 14) (OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.47, 0.79), p = 0.000). The heterogeneity assessment was also significant ( Q (13) = 974.27, p < 0.000, I 2 = 98.66%).

The results for victims only also showed significant results where victims were more likely to have low academic achievement (k = 10) (OR = 0.62, 95% CI (0.47, 0.83), p = 0.001) with a significant heterogeneity between groups ( Q (9) = 966.67, p = 0.000; I 2 = 99.07%). The results for bully/victims only and bullies only were not significant (bully/victims: k = 2, OR = 0.58, 95% CI (0.18, 1.89), p = 0.367); bullies: k = 2, OR = 0.55, 95% CI (0.26, 1.19), p = 0.128) ( Figure 3 ).

Meta-analysis of the relationship between bullying involvement and academic achievement.

3.4. Mediation Analysis between Victimisation and Academic Achievement Pooled Effect Size

From the above, only seven studies reported mediation results (one of which reported two mediations) or have enough data to calculate the mediation effect between victimisation and academic achievement. The studies that were included in the mediation analysis showed different mediation factors between victimisation and academic achievement, while three studies showed similar mediation factor (academic engagement).

There were significant mediation effects between victimisation and academic achievement for psychological distress and academic engagement combined as one mediation factor (k = 1) (OR = 0.69, 95% CI (0.50, 0.97), p = 0.031), self-concept (k = 1) (OR = 0.26, 95% CI (0.16, 0.43), p = 0.000), self-efficacy (k = 1) (OR = 0.65, 95% CI (0.61, 0.68), p = 0.000), motivation (k = 1) (OR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.82, 0.91), p = 0.000) and academic engagement (k = 3) (OR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.59, 0.99), p = 0.044). On the other hand, no significant mediation was found for self-esteem and self-efficacy combined as one mediation factor (k = 1) (OR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.54, 1.39), p = 0.546).

The overall pooled effect size for all motivational factors as mediators was significant (k = 8) (OR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.72, 0.77), p = 0.000) with a significant heterogeneity between groups ( Q (7) = 79.30, p = 0.000; I 2 = 91.17%) (See Figure 4 ).

Meta-analysis showing the mediation effect of cognitive–motivational factors between victimisation involvement and academic achievement.

3.5. Moderator Analysis

As the I 2 variance for all analyses was above 75%, this indicates that the differences were due to moderators and not a random error. Meta-ANOVAs were conducted for moderation analyses for the categorical moderators: assessment method of bullying (child-report, peer nomination or mixed); assessment method of the outcomes or mediators (child report, teachers’ report, or schools’ report); country; age (childhood: 5–10; adolescence: 11–18 or mixed); bullying type; and design (longitudinal or cross-sectional).

3.5.1. Moderator Analysis of Motivational Factors

The heterogeneity analysis was significant for some of the analyses. Heterogeneity assessment was conducted for children who were involved in bullying in relation to cognitive–motivational factors.

The heterogeneity assessment indicated that motivational factors were significantly moderated by country ( Qb = 28.85, p = 0.000). This indicated that bullying involvement had a stronger effect on motivational factors in Canadian studies (k = 2, OR = 0.46, p = 0.000) followed by studies in Spain (k = 4, OR = 0.57, p = 0.000), then American studies (k = 8, OR = 0.75, p = 0.000) and finally Austrian studies (k = 3, OR = 0.98, p = 0.86).

Finally, the heterogeneity assessment indicated that motivational factors were also significantly moderated by the type of bullying ( Qb = 24.66, p = 0.000). This indicated that relational bullying had a stronger effect on motivational factors (k = 2, OR = 0.52, p = 0.014) followed by cyberbullying involvement (k = 4, OR = 0.57, p = 0.000), then sexual bullying (k = 1, OR = 0.72, p = 0.000) and traditional bullying (k = 10, OR = 0.81, p = 0.000).

On the other hand, heterogeneity was not significant for design, age category and assessment method for the mediator and bullying. However, when looking specifically at design, it was found that longitudinal studies (k = 12, OR = 0.70, p = 0.000) and cross-sectional studies (k = 5, OR = 0.68, p = 0.001) were significant. For age, studies that included adolescents (k = 11, OR = 0.74, p = 0.000), children (k = 1, OR = 0.69, p = 0.047) and mixed (children and adolescents) (k = 5, OR = 0.64, p = 0.000) were significant. In addition, studies that included children’s reports (k = 16, OR = 0.70, p = 0.000) and mixed reports (k = 1, OR = 0.69, p = 0.047) for bullying data were significant. Finally, studies that included children’s reports (k = 15, OR = 0.73, p = 0.000) and teachers’ reports (k = 2, OR = 0.52, p = 0.014) for the data on mediator factors were significant.

3.5.2. Moderator Analysis for Academic Achievement

The heterogeneity analysis was significant for some of the analyses. Heterogeneity assessment was conducted for children who were involved in bullying in relation to academic achievement. The heterogeneity assessment indicated that this relationship was significantly moderated by age categories ( Qb = 7.30, p = 0.026). This indicates that bullying involvement had a stronger effect on academic achievement for studies amongst children (k = 1, OR = 0.58, p = 0.003) and adolescents (k = 12, OR = 0.58, p = 0.005) followed by a study that included both children and adolescents (k = 1, OR = 0.83, p = 0.000).

The heterogeneity assessment indicated that the relationship was also significantly moderated by the assessment method for bullying data ( Qb = 12.62, p = 0.002). This indicated that bullying involvement had a stronger effect on academic achievement in studies that had peer nomination (k = 3, OR = 0.23, p = 0.000) followed by a study where bullying was reported by a mix of informants (k = 1, OR = 0.56, p = 0.003) and finally by children’s reports (k = 10, OR = 0.71, p = 0.013).

The heterogeneity assessment indicated that the relationship was also significantly moderated by country ( Qb = 21.41, p = 0.000). This indicated that bullying involvement had a stronger effect on academic achievement in studies in Portugal (k = 3, OR = 0.23, p = 0.000), followed by American studies (k = 6, OR = 0.64, p = 0.020), then Canadian studies (k = 2, OR = 0.66, p = 0.000) and finally Austrian studies (k = 3, OR = 0.85, p = 0.038).

The heterogeneity assessment indicated that the relationship was also significantly moderated by study design ( Qb = 11.26, p = 0.001). This indicated that bullying involvement had a stronger effect on academic achievement in longitudinal studies (k = 7, OR = 0.43, p = 0.000) compared with cross-sectional studies (k = 7, OR = 0.85, p = 0.006).

Finally, the heterogeneity assessment indicated that the relationship was also significantly moderated by the type of bullying ( Qb = 26.10, p = 0.000). This indicated that studies that investigated general bullying had a stronger effect on academic achievement (k = 3, OR = 0.23, p = 0.000), followed by studies that reported relational bullying involvement (k = 2, OR = 0.66, p = 0.000), then traditional bullying (k = 8, OR = 0.70, p = 0.119) and finally sexual bullying (k = 1, OR = 0.83, p = 0.000).

On the other hand, when looking specifically at assessment methods for the outcome (academic achievement), it was found that schools’ reports (k = 6, OR = 0.51, p = 0.005) and teachers’ reports (k = 1, OR = 0.69, p = 0.001) were significant, but not children’s reports (k = 7, OR = 0.67, p = 0.059).

3.5.3. Moderator Analysis for Mediation

The heterogeneity analysis was significant for some of the analyses. Heterogeneity assessment was conducted for children who were involved in victimisation. The heterogeneity assessment indicated that the mediation analysis was significantly moderated by the assessment of the outcome (academic achievement) ( Qb = 5.31, p = 0.070). This indicated that mediational factors had a stronger effect on academic achievement for teachers’ reports (k = 2, OR = 0.83, p = 0.267), compared to children’s reports (k = 6, OR = 0.66, p = 0.000).

On the other hand, when looking specifically at design, it was found that longitudinal mediation studies were significant (k = 5, OR = 0.76, p = 0.004), but not cross-sectional mediation studies (k = 3, OR = 0.55, p = 0.069). For age, mediation studies that included adolescents (k = 7, OR = 0.70, p = 0.000) and children (k = 1, OR = 0.67, p = 0.029) were significant. In addition, studies that included children’s reports (k = 7, OR = 0.70, p = 0.000) and mixed reports (k = 1, OR = 0.67, p = 0.029) for the bullying data were significant, while studies that included children’s reports (k = 4, OR = 0.72, p = 0.002) on academic achievement were significant, but not schools’ reports (k = 3, OR = 0.55, p = 0.069) or teachers’ reports (k = 1, OR = 0.96, p = 0.658). Mediation data studies that included children’s reports (k = 6, OR = 0.66, p = 0.000) were significant while teachers’ reports were not significant (k = 2, OR = 0.83, p = 0.267). Studies that reported traditional bullying were significant (k = 6, OR = 0.66, p = 0.000) but not studies on relational bullying (k = 2, OR = 0.83, p = 0.274).

3.6. Publication and Risk Bias

Four publication bias methods were employed (see Table 2 ). The studies included in each analysis are reflected in each meta-analysis figure shown above. For example, when the motivational factors are the outcome and the predictor is any bullying involvement then the analysis was done for all studies shown in Figure 2 , while when the predictor is the victims only subgroup then the studies that investigated victimisation only are included, and so on.

Publication bias analysis using four methods.

1 Only one study and thus cannot be performed; 2 Only two studies and thus cannot be performed.

3.6.1. Cognitive-Motivational Factors as Outcomes of Bullying Involvement

The ‘5k + 10’ benchmark using the Rosenthal’s Failsafe N analysis was not reached for bullies only, indicating that the found effects are open for future disconfirmation. The rest Rosenthal’s Failsafe N analyses indicated no publication bias for any bullying involvement and victimization only. The Kendall’s Tau calculations and Egger’s Test for all indicated an absence of publication bias. Lastly, the Trim-and-Fill analysis did not show different effect sizes for any of the results.

3.6.2. Academic Achievement as an Outcome of Bullying Involvement

For bullying involvement and victimisation there was no publication bias as the ‘5k + 10’ benchmark was reached. The Kendall’s Tau calculations indicated publication bias for any bullying involvement, but not for victims only. The Egger’s Test showed no publication bias. Lastly, the Trim-and-Fill analysis showed exactly the same effect sizes for both.

3.6.3. Mediation

For the mediation studies there was no publication bias as the ‘5k + 10’ benchmark was reached. The Kendall’s Tau calculation and the Egger’s Test did not find any publication bias. The Trim-and-Fill procedure showed exactly the same effect size for the mediation.

In addition, the academic engagement studies showed publication bias, as the ‘5k + 10’ benchmark was not reached. No publication bias was found in the rest of the tests (See Table 2 ).

3.6.4. One Study Removed

We repeated the meta-analyses by removing each study one by one. The results show that when removed none of the studies changed the pooled effect sizes for the relationship between bullying and/or victimisation involvement and academic achievement (See Figure 5 ), for the relationship between bullying and/or victimisation involvement and cognitive motivational factors (See Figure 6 ), and for the mediation analysis (See Figure 7 ). The pooled effect sizes remained significant as shown in the original analysis before removing any of the studies, indicating that none of the studies could change the results when removed.

‘One study removed’ analysis: meta-analysis showing the pooled effect size of the relationship between bullying involvement and academic achievement with each study removed.

‘One study removed’ analysis: meta-analysis showing the pooled effect size of the relationship between bullying involvement and cognitive-motivational factors with each study removed.

‘One study removed’ analysis: meta-analysis showing the pooled effect size of the mediation effect of cognitive-motivational factors on the relationship between victimisation involvement and academic achievement with each study removed.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of cognitive–motivational factors on the association between bullying involvement and academic achievement. To our knowledge this is the first meta-analysis that investigated the mediation between bullying involvement and academic achievement. The overall findings showed that the relationship between victimisation and academic achievement was significantly mediated by cognitive–motivational factors. Specifically, victimisation was associated with low scores on the cognitive–motivational factors evaluated (e.g., motivation, student engagement), which were, in turn, associated with low academic achievement. These relationships were moderated by country, where American studies from the US had stronger mediation than one Canadian study. In addition, longitudinal studies and studies that included traditional victimisation had a significant mediation effect while cross-sectional studies and studies on relational victimisation did not.

The overall finding that bullying involvement and specifically victimisation is associated with low motivation, which is linked to low academic achievement, is supported partially by the literature [ 8 , 36 , 37 ]. The previous literature looked at the relationship between bullying involvement and academic achievement separately without taking into account the cognitive-motivational factors. The cognitive-motivational factors in this study included motivation, academic engagement, self-esteem, self-efficacy and self-concept, which have been found in the literature to be affected by victimisation.

The question is: why do victims perform more poorly in their academic achievement compared to other children who are not bullied? What are the mechanisms that are behind this? This meta-analysis study points out to an important mediation of this relationship, namely cognitive–motivational factors. These mechanisms are supported by some theories. These include the self-determination theory (SDT) [ 38 ], the expectancy–value theory [ 32 , 33 , 68 ], and the achievement goal theory [ 34 , 35 ], that may explain these relationships. Firstly, those who are bullied are more likely to be less motivated [ 21 ] and have lower aspiration [ 31 ] to engage in a particular goal such as academic success and achievement. Secondly, victims may have a negative view of themselves [ 19 ], have low self-efficacy (the belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations or accomplish a task) [ 23 , 69 ] and have low self-concept [ 24 ] that can in turn affect their scholastic achievement [ 36 ]. Thirdly, victimisation may lead to isolation, school adjustment problems including loneliness, and school avoidance [ 41 ] and as a result their self-esteem and their self-efficacy are also affected. These in turn put these children at risk of school absenteeism [ 70 ], truancy (e.g., [ 71 ]), and dropping out of school [ 72 ] as they may view their school as an unsafe place (e.g., [ 73 ]). For example, Jan and Husain [ 74 ] found that bullied students were more likely to miss school for fear of being criticized by their peers and Buhs et al. [ 75 ] found that chronically abused children were more likely to engage in school avoidance behaviour. Fourth, peer victimisation may also result in internalizing problems [ 41 , 76 ] and somatic and psychological problems [ 41 , 77 ] that result in problematic levels of school absenteeism [ 73 , 78 , 79 ], which, in turn, results in poor academic outcomes [ 80 ]. This could also lead to less engagement as they are afraid of being mocked and made fun of and as a result perform more poorly. In a longitudinal study, Juvonen et al. [ 81 ] found that peer harassment led to psychological maladjustment (low self-worth, loneliness, and depressive symptoms), which led to poor school functioning. Children with depressive symptoms may exhibit poor concentration and memory, and consequently, have low academic achievement [ 82 ]. Finally, victims may also have a negative perception of their school climate [ 13 , 73 ], which may, in turn, cause school absenteeism [ 83 ], and poor academic outcomes [ 9 , 84 , 85 ].

4.1. Implications

The finding that victimisation affects both motivational factors and academic achievement has great implications for educational practice. Educational interventions that aim to improve academic success and achievement need to take into account these aspects. The first step of an intervention program should therefore be decreasing victimisation [ 86 , 87 ] and particularly focusing on improving motivation, self-esteem, self-efficacy and self-concept. The second step is to increase students’ academic achievement and enhance their educational engagement.

In addition, high levels of support from family and friends [ 42 , 88 , 89 ] and a positive teacher–child relationship that can have a positive effect by impacting their sense of school connectedness [ 90 ] can protect bullied children and adolescents from poor academic outcomes.

Studies that looked at the mediation relationship are very few and those few studies looked at different motivational factors as discussed above. Given that the findings of the meta-analysis showed that there is an indirect negative effect of victimisation on academic success and achievement through cognitive–motivational factors, this is an area of research yet to be explored further with these factors and to include all bullying subgroups (bullies, victims, and bully/victims) and types (direct, relational, and cyber). There is a particular need for longitudinal studies examining whether bullying in fact precedes changes in the cognitive–motivational factors examined in the current study that in turn impair academic achievement. Despite the increasing number of studies on bullying and victimisation, most of the mediation studies were based in only a few countries. Therefore, there is also a need for studies in multiple countries, particularly in developing countries. This is important as different countries and cultures deal and define bullying and victimisation differently [ 91 , 92 ] and have different educational, school and grading systems, and thus interventions may differ in each country accordingly.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

This is the first meta-analysis study that looked at the mediation effect of cognitive-motivational factors on the relationship between bullying victimisation and academic achievement. The study pointed out the lack of studies in this area and the need for more studies on these mediation factors. The study also gave a good insight into the mechanism for why victimisation can lead to lower academic achievement. This can inform policy makers, practitioners (psychologists, educationalists) and future interventions of the best way to improve victims’ school achievement by concentrating on these factors.

The process of coding and grouping of related terms is a key factor in a meta-analysis. Studies usually differ slightly in terminology and methodologies [ 91 , 92 ]; nevertheless, groups need to be formed, in order to study them in a meta-analysis. Vast methodological differences between cognitive–motivational factors were also observed. However, the study indicated that these factors negatively mediated the relationship between victimisation and academic achievement. This should be further investigated with more studies on these factors. Similarly, the studies usually included victimisation without looking at bullying others and bully/victims.

The term ‘motivation’ is quite broad and the grouping of related yet distinctive terms (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy, self-concept, motivation and academic engagement) might have overshadowed underlying types of motivation. The multifaceted dynamics of motivation need to be explored in greater detail. However, the findings of the current study are an important platform for this type of investigation.

This study utilised four methods to investigate possible publication biases. There were some publication biases especially in relation to bullies and bully/victims simply due to the small number of studies, while for some cases, publication bias was not performed as there were less than three studies (bullies only and bully/victims) and thus these areas should be further investigated. However, our results can be perceived as relatively robust especially with regards to victimisation. In addition, one study removal did not affect the final pooled effect sizes and all results remained significant.

5. Conclusions

The current study is the first meta-analysis that examined the mediation effect of different cognitive–motivational factors on the relationship between bullying victimisation and academic achievement, including moderators. These results showed that motivational factors negatively mediated these relationships. Additionally, the effect sizes were moderated by some moderators including the design of the studies, age, assessment methods for reporting bullying, mediators and outcomes, countries and/or bullying types. Only few studies as shown here looked at the mediation effect of motivation, while none of the studies included aspiration as a mediator. In addition, these studies looked at different cognitive–motivational factors, which shows the need for more studies in this area.

The findings of this meta-analysis are important for educational and psychological practitioners, parents and schools [ 79 , 93 ]. Based on these findings intervention programs and anti-bullying policies [ 94 , 95 ] need to be implemented in schools and parents and family dynamics should play a central role in these interventions. In addition, interventions can concentrate on internal and external motivational and academic factors. Motivational factors can serve as protective factors in these situations, therefore positive enforcement, encouragement, and programs for engaging these children and adolescents should be designed. Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for further studies on each cognitive-motivational factor including several moderators.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) a member of Qatar Foundation Doha, Qatar, National Priority Research Programs (NPRP) under Grant (NPRP9-061-5-006). The authors would like to thank QNRF for their support. We would like also to thank the authors who supplied the relevant data for the study.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/5/2209/s1 , Table S1: PRISMA checklist for meta-analysis studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; methodology, M.S.; software, M.S.; validation, M.S., B.D.S.N., A.E.-A., N.K. and S.H.; formal analysis, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; investigation, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; resources, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; data curation, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S. and B.D.S.N.; writing—review and editing, M.S., B.D.S.N., A.E.-A., N.K. and S.H.; supervision, M.S.; project administration, M.S.; funding acquisition, M.S. and N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by the Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) a member of Qatar Foundation Doha, Qatar, National Priority Research Programs (NPRP) under Grant (NPRP9-061-5-006).

Institutional Review Board Statement

NA as this is a meta-analysis study that did not require active recruitment of participant and thus no ethical approval required.

Informed Consent Statement

NA. This is a meta-analysis study that did not require consent of participant.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE CAREERS PODCAST
• 28 June 2023

Bullying in academia: why it happens and how to stop it

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: zmeel/Getty Images

Morteza Mahmoudi and Chris Jackson talk about how to address bullying in academia.

Morteza Mahmoudi witnessed bullying behaviours during a series of lab visits following his PhD in 2009. He now studies the topic alongside his role as a nanoscience and regenerative medicine researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing. In 2019 he co-founded the Academic Parity Movement, a non-profit which aims to end academic discrimination, violence and bullying across the sector.

In the seventh episode of this podcast series about freedom and safety in science, Mahmoudi tells Adam Levy that bullying is triggered by workplace power imbalances and is particularly prevalent in academia with its hierarchical structure, often causing targets to stay silent.

Bullying can cause a range of physical and mental health problems, he says. Perpetrators damage individuals, institutions’ reputations and wider society. He outlines steps to take if you find yourself bullied, and how academic institutions can tackle the problem.

Mahmoudi is joined by geoscientist Chris Jackson, who left academia in 2022 for a role at engineering consultancy Jacobs, based in Manchester, UK. Jackson welcomes the fact that bullying harassment and discrimination in academia is now more talked about, but says its root cause is an individual’s inability to put themselves in someone else’s position and identify with their personality and experience.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02172-w

Adam Levy: 00:03

Hello, I’m Adam Levy and this is Working Scientist , a Nature Careers podcast. In this episode: bullying in science.

Throughout this series we’ve looked at the threats to scientists and to science itself, threats to freedom and safety that can end careers and block avenues of research.

As we’ve discussed, many such threats come from outside of science. External factors like war, an economic situation, or political interference. But today, in our seventh episode of the series, we’re taking a look at a problem that comes from within the research world, a problem whose severity can derail lives, and yet can be found in labs the world over.

Today we’re talking about bullying and harassment in academic research.

Harassment and bullying can take many forms, and no two experiences are the same. Earlier in this series, we spoke about the impact that online harassment can have on researchers. And in that episode we spoke with Chris Jackson, a geoscientist at the engineering company Jacobs, in the UK.

Chris also shared his thoughts on why, despite evidence of widespread harassment in the sciences, there’s so little awareness of the problem.

Chris Jackson: 01:35

There seems to be this amazing bus between how common it is and the awareness of it. And I think that, in itself, explains why, that it’s so common bullying and harassment, is because I think some people are just ignorant to it.

Either they don’t know what bullying harassment means or by them not being subjected to it, they can't almost imagine it happens to other people.

And I really think, you know, whether it’s bullying, harassment, such as racial discrimination, or its anti-queer sentiments and discrimination, I think a lot of these things arise because people are unable to put themselves in somebody else’s position and identify with the axes of that other person’s personality, which might mean that discrimination is more likely to occur to them than it is to them themselves.

So I do think just that awareness, and continually talking about things, and then showing a bunch of data which kind of explain numerically what the problem is and how it affects people, it’s really, really important, because sometimes it’s just ignorance, and sometimes it’s just, you know, an unwillingness to believe that happens. But we need to keep on banging the drum about these things.

Adam Levy: 02:46

It can seem like a lot of institutions are taking more and more measures to actually fight bullying and harassment. Do you think this is actually taking place in institutions you’ve been aware of? Or is it more about paying lip service to the idea of taking action?

Chris Jackson: 03:03

I think there’s some good people trying to do some good things, is probably the first bit of my answer, I think.

The second bit of my answer is there’s some people who want to be seen to be doing the right thing and doing good things, and they want to be seen to be good.

I can honestly say 20 years into my academic career, although I’m not you know, I’ve kind of recently moved away from the centre of it, these things are being talked about more.

We are, we are talking more about bullying and harassment. You know, there are podcast series and op-eds about about the importance of this, and we’re trying to recognize the importance of good academic conduct and positive academic environments as an integral part of the academic process.

And that wasn’t happening 20 years ago. I think we have moved positively in that sense, which I think is good. Now we still need to have the tenacity and the processes and the, you know - whether they’re disciplinary or supporting victims of abuse - we need to have resources, financial and otherwise, being put into those things to make sure that we’re not just talking about these things more, we are actually seeing people having a better experience within academia or within science more generally, as a function of these things we’re trying to implement.

And that’s all that matters really. It doesn’t matter if you talk about things. All that matters is that people have a better time of it. That’s where we want to get to. How we get there is kind of secondary in a way.

Adam Levy: 04:27

Chris Jackson there. Some researchers have made it their mission to find a way to make the situation better, and to uncover why so many individuals and institutions resist the changes needed to stamp out bullying and harassment in science.

For example, nanomedicine and regenerative medicine researcher Morteza Mahmoudi, who’s at Michigan State University. Besides his official academic research, Morteza is also the co-founder and director of the Academic Parity movement.

Since 2019 the organization has aimed to provide external resources for targets of academic bullying.

We began our conversation discussing what inspired Morteza to found the movement.

Morteza Mahmoudi: 05:15

When I basically got my PhD back in 2009, I had to basically get training in different aspects of science, like in medicine.

So I started visiting different labs and get additional training. So no matter where I basically work, I always basically saw people suffering from the issues of academic bullying and harassment.

So I wrote a short piece to Nature about the issues of the reporting system in the field of academic bullying and harassment.

And it was interesting that between two weeks after publication of these pieces, the number of feedback that I’ve got was like hugely higher than all of the feedbacks that I’ve got for over 200 papers that I had in the field of nanomedicine and regenerative medicine.

So I thought with myself that, okay, our role as a scientist is to make the world a better place to live. So what is better than studying academic bullying? It seems that it’s a real problem, but yet no one talks about it. So I basically, I started studying academic bullying seriously, from that time.

Adam Levy: 06:37

Now, when we talk about bullying, and specifically academic bullying, how do we define those terms?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 06:45

In general terms academic bullying is a violation of human rights in an academic setting.

But it has a wide range of actions. It starts from, like, verbal abuse, all the way to stealing intellectual properties, or authorship credit. Advanced version, I would say, it’s a false allegation of academic misconduct in an attempt to basically remove star scientists from competition.

Adam Levy: 07:19

What are the effects on academics who are being bullied, both in terms of their careers, but also in terms of the actual wellbeing?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 07:30

It has huge effects. It starts from mental health issues in short term, like anxiety or stress.

But in long term, it can also develop serious cardiovascular issues, PTSD, and other mental and even physical health issues.

I always encourage people to also consider the fact that this is not a problem that only affect targets. It also affect like other people. For example, if a target is in like a medical setting or in healthcare, academic bullying, or other types of bullying and harassment, can increase wrong decision-making in medical procedures. So it even affects patients.

Adam Levy: 08:20

Given all these incredibly negative effects on the person on the receiving end, as well as the wider discipline, why does this kind of behaviour happen in the first place?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 08:32

So there are many reasons for that. I mean, the bullying happens actually, when we have power differences. And unfortunately, in academia, they have a unique power difference structures.

If you look at the universities, when an international student basically comes to a lab, many of the major decisions about the careers and also their residency in the lab, gets limited to one person, which is a PI.

So people at higher level of power feel less accountable about their actions and behaviours. If, like a bullying cases get kind of escalated at the lab level, and the target basically complains to department chair or other authorities at the universities, the outcomes that at least we see from scandals that comes to the news are very disappointing, and encourage basically perpetrators to do what they do. And also encourage targets to use the code of silence.

For example, in many cases of academic bullying that comes to the news, specifically like a couple of cases that basically they witnessed last year, the situation is that the perpetrator does bullying behaviour for even a couple of decades.

There were like hundreds of targets, who a portion of them complained to the university and nothing happened. Basically perpetrators got protected for a variety of reasons. For example, one reason is that their interest is intertwined with university’s interest. They bring huge amount of money and funding to the university. Universities gets overhead. So they basically sweep the case under the carpet,

It sends a clear signal to perpetrators that they are protected. They can do whatever they want to do, and another negative signals to target that it's better to use the code of silence

Adam Levy: 10:47

Given all of that. it might seem almost a bit helpless to someone who does find themselves on the receiving end of bullying. What actions can someone actually take if they are in this situation, being bullied by someone in the academic workplace, especially when that might be a superior, someone with power over them?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 11:08

So the first thing is that they should detect and identify academic bullying at the first place. The second part is to document everything. Academic bullies are clever. They barely leave trace of their actions.

So every single chance that basically a target can get to document, they need to document that. If someone is witness, they basically need to also collect their names, their ideas. The third important thing is collective actions.

So it would be great that they basically find allies and look for others that are in the, in the same situation. So this helps a lot.

The other thing is to inform themselves, or basically educate themselves, about the internal and external resources that are available to them to get help.

For example, one of the trusted resources is ombudsofficers, getting consultation from legal bodies, for example. They can consult with a lawyer about the situation.

Be aware of retaliation of any kind, which is unfortunately very common in the case of, like, academic bullying. Try to see what happened to other people at the same cases, and have Plan B in mind.

Adam Levy: 12:38

Now, how is all of this limited when there are serious risks to the career of the academic when they would speak out? For example, I’m speaking about maybe foreign students whose visa depends on them continuing their degree with their supervisor.

Morteza Mahmoudi: 12:56

Yeah, that’s unfortunately the sad reality.

The outcomes of our global survey, which we have done in 2019, and we received over 2000 responses to that, reveal that one of the main reasons that targets try to use code of silence instead of speaking up, is the fear of retaliation.

The examples like I mentioned, that came to the news shows that when a person basically complain, they receive serious direct or indirect mobbing which is basically ganging up against targets.

But at the same time, the recent awareness about the issue of academic polling basically forced other stakeholders to come in and take some actions.

For example, funding agencies now have a direct line for targets to basically report any abuse they receive, if the PIs are funded by that particular agency. One thing I always emphasize for international students is to be proactive about the lab that they want to do the research.

So if they try to reach out to the former lab members, they can get useful feedback.

So by being proactive, they can actually evaluate the lab health prior to joining a lab.

Adam Levy: 14:30

That note of doing research before moving a lab is actually something we touched on in a previous series of this podcast when we were discussing moving labs.

But a lot of what we’ve been talking about just now has been about what the victim of bullying can do if they find themselves in that situation.

What about third parties, people who perhaps witnessed this kind of behaviour taking place?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 14:55

Yeah, so first of all, I would like to change the word of victim to target.

It’s important because victim has kind of a negative feeling to the, to the basically target. Anyway, a witness can basically do a lot of things.

They can interfere with the situation to basically change the direction of the discussion. They can report what they witness, at least to the trusted internal resources, like to the ombudsperson. They can basically back up the claims of the targets, if they decide to speak up. There’s a kind of risk. But if they take the risk and want to report they can have a great effect.

Adam Levy: 15:44

As you’ve shared, a big part of why bullying and harassment are so commonplace is because there are all these structures in place which which effectively protect the bullier. What should institutions change in how they handle these kinds of cases?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 16:01

So institutions and universities by its own basically, have limited intention to fairly consider the cases of academic bullying and harassment. What we are basically advocating for is making a platform that all of the involved, the stakeholders, can be responsible and response able for those cases.

For example, if funding agencies gets involved in the cases, and they basically ban universities that have higher rate of bullying cases from funding they provide, then universities are forced to take more fair actions about, like those issues.

The other thing is to better understand the long-term effects of academic bullying and harassment on institutions and also on science.

The long-term side effect is far beyond the target. It causes many talented scientists to leave academia. It can cause data fabrication, because in many cases that the basically witness and reach to the reports, bowling was the initial force, to targets to fabricate data. And the other important stakeholders that needs to be involved, I think, are taxpayers.

All of the costs of the perpetrators are being covered by the university’s lawyer, which are basically taxpayers’ money and funding.

The other thing I think is very important that needs to be carefully considered in the field of academic bullying and harassment, is the accountability of the investigation, internal investigation committees, who basically made those decisions and what responsibilities they have over the decisions.

Adam Levy: 18:07

What does it mean to you purely on a personal level, to be able to carry out this work to try and address academic bullying and harassment?

Morteza Mahmoudi: 18:17

As a scientist and as a building block of the scientific community, we want to basically do something that matters. If the universities can’t handle the bullying and harassment, because it’s very unfortunate, but again, it’s a reality, that if targets of academic bullying and harassment remains unhealed, there’s a great risk that they would be a future bullies when they basically get to the power position.

So honestly, I get paid, like, for my works in nanomedicine, and regenerative medicine. But I value the work I do volunteering on, like, academic bullying and harassment, because I see in real time that it helps targets of academic bullying, and it may help the field to kind of move forward in creating a platform that finally all of their stakeholders and decision-makers and gatekeepers basically, can feel responsible and response able to finally put an end on this age-old issue.

Adam Levy: 19:32

Morteza Mahmoudi there. We mentioned in previous episodes that this series would be in seven parts, and this is indeed the seventh episode.

But in producing the series, in particular this episode, we’ve realized there’s just too much to say to fit it all in.

And so we'll be returning to the topic of harassment and misconduct in science in an episode coming soon, where we'll look specifically at the devastation that sexual harassment and assault can have on researchers, and on research.

That episode should be out in a couple of weeks. So make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss it. Until then, thanks for listening. I’m Adam Levy.

Husbandry Technician I

Memphis, Tennessee

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (St. Jude)

Lead Researcher – Department of Bone Marrow Transplantation & Cellular Therapy

Researcher in the center for in vivo imaging and therapy, scientist or lead researcher (protein engineering, hematology, shengdar q. tsai lab), lead or senior researcher - flow cytometry.

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Advertisement

Direct and Indirect Effects of Bullying Victimization on Academic Performance and Mental Health Among Secondary School Students

• Original Paper
• Published: 21 September 2022
• Volume 15 , pages 220–230, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Kayla Miskimon   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4347-9360 1 ,
• Lyndsay N. Jenkins   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4578-0296 1 &
• Sonya Kaminski   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4762-864X 1  

1852 Accesses

2 Citations

Explore all metrics

This study examined the associations between bullying victimization and mental health and academic performance outcomes. This study also examined the indirect effect of academic performance on the association between bullying victimization and mental health. Participants included 676 secondary school students from the Southeast region of the USA. Using multi-group path analysis, results revealed that traditional victimization was positively associated with mental health difficulties for both boys and girls. Further, both traditional and cyber victimization were negatively associated with academic performance for girls only. Finally, results indicated that the indirect effect of academic performance on the association between traditional and cyber victimization and mental health was only significant for girls. Findings from this study highlight gender differences in bullying victimization outcomes. Implications for researchers, such as suggestions for future bullying intervention programs, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Mental health and academic performance: a study on selection and causation effects from childhood to early adulthood

Sara Agnafors, Mimmi Barmark & Gunilla Sydsjö

Social Media Addiction and Its Impact on College Students' Academic Performance: The Mediating Role of Stress

Academic Stress in the Final Years of School: A Systematic Literature Review

Viviana M. Wuthrich, Tess Jagiello & Vanessa Azzi

AlBuhairan, F., Abou Abbas, O., El Sayed, D., Badri, M., Alshahri, S., & de Vries, N. (2017). The relationship of bullying and physical violence to mental health and academic performance: A cross-sectional study among adolescents in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 4 (2), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpam.2016.12.005

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Almroth, M. C., Laszlo, K. D., Kosidou, K., & Galanti, M. R. (2018). Association between adolescents’ academic aspirations and expectations and mental health: A one-year follow-up study. European Journal of Public Health, 28 (3), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky025

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault, L., Bowes, L., & Shakoor, S. (2010). Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: ‘Much ado about nothing’? Psychological Medicine, 40 (5), 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383

Arslan, G. (2021). School bullying and youth internalizing and externalizing behaviors: Do school belonging and school achievement matter? International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 36 (4), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11469-021-00526-X

Article   Google Scholar  

Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Educational Researcher, 38 (9), 665–676. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09351981

Baier, D., Hong, J. S., Kliem, S., & Bergmann, M. C. (2019). Consequences of bullying on adolescents’ mental health in Germany: Comparing face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (9), 2347–2357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1181-6

Beckman, L., Hagquist, C., & Hellström, L. (2012). Does the association with psychosomatic health problems differ between cyberbullying and traditional bullying? Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3–4), 421–434.

Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the finish line: Completing college at America’s public universities . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bowers, A. J. (2010). Grades and graduation: A longitudinal risk perspective to identify student dropouts. Journal of Educational Research, 103 (3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903382970

Bowers, A. J., Sprott, R., & Taff, S. (2013). Do we know who will drop out? A review of the predictors of dropping out of high school: Precision, sensitivity and specificity. High School Journal, 96 (2), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2013.0000

Brookhart, S. M., Guskey, T. R., Bowers, A. J., McMillan, J. H., Smith, J. K., Smith, L. F., Stevens, M. T., & Welsh, M. E. (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 803–848. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316672069

Brown, C. F., Demaray, M. K., & Secord, S. M. (2014). Cyber victimization in middle school and relations to social emotional outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 (6), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.014

Bussey, K., Fitzpatrick, S., & Raman, A. (2015). The role of moral disengagement and self-efficacy in cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 14 (1), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.954045

Carbone-Lopez, K., Esbensen, F.-A., & Brick, B. T. (2010). Correlates and consequences of peer victimization: Gender differences in direct and indirect forms of bullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8 (4), 332–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010362954

Cheng, S.-T., Cheung, K. C. C., & Cheung, C. (2008). Peer victimization and depression among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 4 (4), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20489

Christina, S., Magson, N. R., Kakar, V., & Rapee, R. M. (2021). The bidirectional relationships between peer victimization and internalizing problems in school-aged children: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 85 , 101979–101979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.101979

Claes, L., Luyckx, K., Baetens, I., Ven, M., & Witteman, C. (2015). Bullying and victimization, depressive mood, and non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents: The moderating role of parental support. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24 (11), 3363–3371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0138-2

Davis, J. P., Merrin, G. J., Ingram, K. M., Espelage, D. L., Valido, A., & El Sheikh, A. J. (2019). Examining pathways between bully victimization, depression, & school belonging among early adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (9), 2365–2378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01340-9

Demaray, M. K., Summers, K. H., Jenkins, L. N., & Becker, L. D. (2014). Bullying participant behaviors questionnaire (BPBQ): Establishing a reliable and valid measure. Journal of School Violence, 15 (2), 158–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.964801

Dervishi, E., Lala, M., & Ibrahimi, S. (2019). School bullying and symptoms of depression. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 21 (2), 48–55. https://doi.org/10.12740/APP/103658

Dever, B. V., & Gaier, K. (2021). Psychometric properties of the behavior assessment system for children-3 behavioral and emotional screening system student-report form among a predominantly Latinx elementary school sample. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39 (1), 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920951065

Englander, E., Donnerstein, E., Kowalski, R., Lin, C. A., & Parti, K. (2017). Defining cyberbullying. Pediatrics, 140 (2), S148–S151. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758U

Espelage, D., Hong, J., Rao, M., & Low, S. (2013). Associations between peer victimization and academic performance. Theory into Practice, 52 (4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829724

Evans, C. B. R., Smokowski, P. R., Rose, R. A., Mercado, M. C., & Marshall, K. J. (2019). Cumulative bullying experiences, adolescent behavioral and mental health, and academic achievement: An integrative model of perpetration, victimization, and bystander behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28 (9), 2415–2428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1078-4

Felix, E. D., & McMahon, S. D. (2007). The role of gender in peer victimization among youth: A study of incidence, interrelations, and social cognitive correlates. Journal of School Violence, 6 (3), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v06n03_03

Gardella, J. H., Fisher, B. W., & Teurbe-Tolon, A. R. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cyber-victimization and educational outcomes for adolescents. Review of Educational Research, 87 (2), 283–308. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689136

Geiser, S., & Santelices, M.V. (2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators of four-year college outcomes. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/publications.php?id=265

Gini, G., Card, N. A., & Pozzoli, T. (2018). A meta-analysis of the differential relations of traditional and cyber-victimization with internalizing problems. Aggressive Behavior, 44 (2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21742

Gladden, R. M., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and U.S. Department of Education. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf

Haertel, G. D., Walberg, H. J., & Weinstein, T. (1983). Psychological models of educational performance: A theoretical synthesis of constructs. Review of Educational Research, 53 (1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543053001075

Hanish, L. D., & Guerra, N. G. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of patterns of adjustment following peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 14 (1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579402001049

Holt, M. K., Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., Polanin, J. R., Holland, K. M., DeGue, S., Matjasko, J. L., Wolfe, M., & Reid, G. (2015). Bullying and suicidal ideation and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 135 (2), e496–e509. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1864

Hymel, S., & Swearer, S. M. (2015). Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70 (4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038928

Juvonen, J., Wang, Y., & Espinoza, G. (2011). Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. Journal of Early Adolescence, 31 (1), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431610379415

Kellam, S. G., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., & Ialongo, N. (1994). Depressive symptoms over first grade and their response to a developmental epidemiologically based preventive trial aimed at improving achievement. Development and Psychopathology, 6 (3), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006052

Khong, J. Z. N., Tan, Y. R., Elliott, J. M., Fung, D. S. S., Sourander, A., & Ong, S. H. (2020). Traditional victims and cybervictims: Prevalence, overlap, and association with mental health among adolescents in Singapore. School Mental Health, 12 (1), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09337-x

Kim, S., Kimber, M., Boyle, M. H., & Georgiades, K. (2019). Sex differences in the association between cyberbullying victimization and mental health, substance use, and suicidal ideation in adolescents. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64 (2), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743718777397

Kim, Y. K., Sanders, J. E., Makubuya, T., & Yu, M. (2020). Risk factors of academic performance: Experiences of school violence, school safety concerns, and depression by gender. Child and Youth Care Forum, 49 (5), 725–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09552-7

Liu, J., Bullock, A., Coplan, R. J., Chen, X., Li, D., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Developmental cascade models linking peer victimization, depression, and academic achievement in Chinese children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 36 (1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12212

Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46 (5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716

Moilanen, K. L., Shaw, D. S., & Maxwell, K. L. (2010). Developmental cascades: Externalizing, internalizing, and academic competence from middle childhood to early adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 22 (3), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000337

Moore, S. E., Norman, R. E., Suetani, S., Thomas, H. J., Sly, P. D., & Scott, J. G. (2017). Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World Journal of Psychiatry, 7 (1), 60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60

Mundy, L. K., Canterford, L., Kosola, S., Degenhardt, L., Allen, N. B., & Patton, G. C. (2017). Peer victimization and academic performance in primary school children. Academic Pediatrics, 17 (8), 830–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2017.06.012

Nakamoto, J., & Schwartz, D. (2010). Is peer victimization associated with academic achievement? A Meta-Analytic Review. Social Development, 19 (2), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00539.x

Nielsen, M. B., Tangen, T., Idsoe, T., Matthiesen, S. B., & Magerøy, N. (2015). Post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of bullying at work and at school. A literature review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21 , 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.001

Okumu, M., Kim, Y. K., Sanders, J. E., Makubuya, T., Small, E., & Hong, J. S. (2020). Gender-specific pathways between face-to-face and cyber bullying victimization, depressive symptoms, and academic performance among U.S. adolescents. Child Indicators Research, 13 (6), 2205–2223. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12187-020-09742-8

Olenik-Shemesh, D., Heiman, T., & Eden, S. (2012). Cyberbullying victimisation in adolescence: Relationships with loneliness and depressive mood. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17 (3), 361–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2012.704227

Orozco, R., Benjet, C., Borges, G., Moneta Arce, M. F., Fregoso Ito, D., Fleiz, C., & Villatoro, J. A. (2018). Association between attempted suicide and academic performance indicators among middle and high school students in Mexico: Results from a national survey. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 12 (1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-018-0215-6

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4 (2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286288

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2010). Cyberbullying and self-esteem. Journal of School Health, 80 (12), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00548.x

Perren, S., Dooley, J., Shaw, T., & Cross, D. (2010). Bullying in school and cyberspace: Associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 4 (1), 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-4-28

Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Behavior assessment system for children (3rd ed.). Bloomington: NCS Pearson Inc.

Google Scholar  

Riffle, L. N., Kelly, K. M., Demaray, M. L., Malecki, C. E., Santuzzi, A. M., Rodriguez-Harris, D. J., & Emmons, J. D. (2021). Associations among bullying role behaviors and academic performance over the course of an academic year for boys and girls. Journal of School Psychology, 86 , 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.002

Schoeler, T., Duncan, L., Cecil, C. M., Ploubidis, G. B., & Pingault, J.-B. (2018). Quasi-experimental evidence on short- and long-term consequences of bullying victimization: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144 (12), 1229–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000171

Seldin, M., Yanez, C., National Center for Education Statistics (ED), & Synergy Enterprises, I. (2019). Student reports of bullying: Results from the 2017 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey. Web Tables. NCES 2019-054. In: National Center for Education Statistics . National Center for Education Statistics.

Sidera, F., Serrat, E., & Rostan, C. (2021). Effects of cybervictimization on the mental health of primary school students. Frontiers in Public Health, 9 , 588209–588209. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.588209

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

Sosnowski, D. W., Kliewer, W., & Lepore, S. J. (2016). The role of sleep in the relationship between victimization and externalizing problems in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (9), 1744–1754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0506-2

Totura, C. M. W., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2014). Psychological distress and student engagement as mediators of the relationship between peer victimization and achievement in middle school youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 (1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9918-4

Turner, M. G., Exum, M. L., Brame, R., & Holt, T. J. (2013). Bullying victimization and adolescent mental health: General and typological effects across sex. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41 (1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.12.005

Vaillancourt, T., Brittain, H., McDougall, P., & Duku, E. (2013). Longitudinal links between childhood peer victimization, internalizing and externalizing problems, and academic functioning: Developmental cascades. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 (8), 1203–1215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9781-5

van der Ende, J., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. (2016). The bidirectional pathways between internalizing and externalizing problems and academic performance from 6 to 18 years. Development and Psychopathology, 28 (3), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579416000353

van Geel, M., Vedder, P., & Tanilon, J. (2014). Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 168 (5), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143

Wigderson, S., & Lynch, M. (2013). Cyber- and traditional peer victimization: Unique relationships with adolescent well-being. Psychology of Violence, 3 (4), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033657

Yuchang, J., Junyi, L., Junxiu, A., Jing, W., & Mingcheng, H. (2019). The differential victimization associated with depression and anxiety in cross-cultural perspective: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 20 (4), 560–573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017726426

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Kayla Miskimon, Lyndsay N. Jenkins & Sonya Kaminski

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyndsay N. Jenkins .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Miskimon, K., Jenkins, L.N. & Kaminski, S. Direct and Indirect Effects of Bullying Victimization on Academic Performance and Mental Health Among Secondary School Students. School Mental Health 15 , 220–230 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09545-y

Download citation

Accepted : 13 September 2022

Published : 21 September 2022

Issue Date : March 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-022-09545-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bullying victimization
• Cyber victimization
• Academic performance
• Mental health
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Select Your Interests

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

Bullying, Psychosocial Adjustment, and Academic Performance in Elementary School

Author Affiliations: Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences (Drs Glew, Fan, and Katon), Pediatrics (Drs Glew and Rivara), and Epidemiology (Drs Rivara and Kernic), University of Washington, and Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (Drs Rivara and Kernic), Seattle.

Background   Over the past decade, concerns about bullying and its role in school violence, depression, and health concerns have grown. However, no large studies in the United States have examined the prevalence of bullying during elementary school or its association with objective measures of school attendance and achievement.

Objective   To determine the prevalence of bullying during elementary school and its association with school attendance, academic achievement, disciplinary actions, and self-reported feelings of sadness, safety, and belonging.

Design   Cross-sectional study using 2001-2002 school data.

Setting   Urban, West Coast public school district.

Participants   Three thousand five hundred thirty (91.4%) third, fourth, and fifth grade students.

Main Outcome Measure   Self-reported involvement in bullying.

Results   Twenty-two percent of children surveyed were involved in bullying either as a victim, bully, or both. Victims and bully-victims were more likely to have low achievement than bystanders (odds ratios [ORs], 0.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7-0.9] and 0.8 [95% CI, 0.6-1.0], respectively). All 3 bullying-involved groups were significantly more likely than bystanders to feel unsafe at school (victims, OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.1-4.2]; bullies, OR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.5-4.1]; bully-victims, OR, 5.0 [95% CI, 1.9-13.6]). Victims and bully-victims were more likely to report feeling that they don’t belong at school (ORs, 4.1 [95% CI, 2.6-6.5] and 3.1 [95% CI, 1.3-7.2], respectively). Bullies and victims were more likely than bystanders to feel sad most days (ORs 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2-1.9] and 1.8 [95% CI, 1.2-2.8], respectively). Bullies and bully-victims were more likely to be male (ORs, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2-1.9] and 3.0 [95% CI, 1.3-7.0], respectively).

Conclusions   The prevalence of frequent bullying among elementary school children is substantial. Associations between bullying involvement and school problems indicate this is a serious issue for elementary schools. The research presented herein demonstrates the need for evidence-based antibullying curricula in the elementary grades.

Bullying is defined as any repeated negative activity or aggression intended to harm or bother someone who is perceived by peers as being less physically or psychologically powerful than the aggressor(s). 1 Of particular concern is the frequent bullying of children because this may have an adverse impact on victims’ scholastic achievement, desire to attend school, and self-esteem. 2

The first large-scale study of bullying in the United States was published by Nansel and colleagues 3 in 2000. By surveying more than 15 000 students in grades 6 through 10, they found the prevalence of bullying involvement among American teens and preteens was approximately 30%. The authors also found a significant association between bullying involvement and lower self-perceived academic achievement and other measures of social maladjustment.

Although Nansel et al found important evidence regarding the potential detrimental effects of bullying on self-perceived academic achievement and school attendance, no objective measures of academic achievement or attendance were collected. Furthermore, the study did not include children in lower grades (prior to sixth grade). Authors from other countries have reported the highest prevalence of bullying is among elementary school–aged children. 1 , 4 The current study examines the prevalence of bullying involvement among elementary school children and its association with school records of attendance, academic achievement test scores, suspension or expulsion, and self-reported measures of psychosocial adjustment.

A large, urban public school system in 1 West Coast US city agreed to participate in this study. The school district annually surveys students in their homeroom classes to determine how the school climate can be improved to better serve the students. The authors were asked to submit bullying questions for the 2001 survey because the district recognized bullying as a problem.

Survey questions were linked to school data on standardized test scores, attendance records, school suspension and expulsion records, and demographic data. All data were subsequently provided to researchers without identifying information. The study was approved by the University of Washington (Seattle) institutional review board and by the research committee of the school district.

In this study, we sought to address 3 questions: (1) What factors are associated with bullying involvement among young children? (2) Is bullying associated with adverse academic achievement and attendance? (3) What are the behavioral and emotional problems associated with bullying?

Four questions about bullying were accepted by the school district for use in the internal school climate survey, along with 33 other questions. These 4 questions ( Figure ) were taken from a larger, reliable, well-validated bullying survey and adapted for the age groups surveyed. 5 If the first 2 key bullying questions were not answered but the rest of the survey was, the respondent was unable to be classified as a victim or bully and was classified as a nonresponder. Those 12.4% who fell into the nonresponder category were similar to responders on sex, ethnicity, age, grade, socioeconomic status, special education status, and suspension or expulsion status. However, they differed from responders in that they had lower attendance and achievement and were more likely to endorse gun carrying, stealing, and smoking. Because of these differences, they were analyzed separately.

Survey questions.

Students were classified as only victims, only bullies, bully-victims (those who were both victimized by bullies and bullied other children), bystanders (children who did not bully others and were not bullied by others), or nonresponders (students who could not be classified) based on their answers to the survey questions. Bystanders served as the reference group in all analyses.

Cutoffs for bullying status were chosen to be consistent with prior literature. 1 , 3 Children who said they were hurt, bothered, or made fun of always, as opposed to sometimes and never, were considered victims. Children who said they bullied others 2 to 3 times per month or more were classified as bullies. Children who fit criteria for both bullies and victims were removed from the “bullies only” and “victims only” categories and treated as a separate “bully-victim” group.

Academic Achievement, Attendance, and Disciplinary Actions

The Washington Assessment of Student Learning 6 and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, 7 2 standardized measures of academic achievement, were administered in the spring of 2002. Each examination consisted of subtest scores for reading, math, and listening. A composite score was created for each child, which was used as a proxy for academic achievement.

School attendance was expressed as a percentage of days attended of days enrolled during the 2001-2002 school year. This was treated as a continuous variable.

Students were categorized as suspended or expelled if they experienced either of these during the 2001-2002 school year. This variable was then treated as a dichotomous variable (suspended or expelled vs neither suspended nor expelled).

Psychosocial Measures

Other survey questions used for this analysis included whether the students felt safe at school, whether they felt they belonged at their school, and whether they felt sad most days. In addition, students were queried about how wrong they felt it was to engage in specific high-risk behaviors: carrying a gun to school, beating up people who start a fight, smoking cigarettes, stealing, cheating, initiating fights, and attacking other students with the idea of seriously hurting them ( Figure ).

Socioeconomic Status

Receiving free lunch at school was used as a proxy for low-income status. Based on the National School Lunch Program for the 2001-2002 school year, a child was eligible for free lunch if his or her family income was lower than 130% of the poverty level. 8

Statistical methods

Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and frequencies for demographic variables are provided along with unadjusted odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals ( Table 1 ). Similar statistics for psychosocial variables are presented in Table 2 . Since the 3 achievement subtest scores for each student are highly correlated, the statistical significance of each of them considered together in the same model might be diminished because of colinearity. To address this issue and use all available achievement data, we performed a principal component analysis. The result suggested that a composite score using similar weights for the 3 subtest scores would explain 84% of the variance. Therefore, we created a composite achievement measure, which was defined as the average of the 3 subtest scores. The composite achievement score was treated as a continuous variable in all analyses. Mean achievement test scores for each group were reported in Table 2 .

Multiple logistic regression was performed with bullying status as the response variable, and each of the groups was compared separately to the bystander group. All analyses were adjusted for race and ethnicity, sex, age, and socioeconomic status as potential confounders. Each independent variable of interest was tested individually for significant association with bullying status using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. All significant independent variables from these regressions were then entered into the final model to determine which factors remained significantly associated with bullying status after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. All variables included in each of the 4 final models, whether significant or not, are presented with their associated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals in Table 3 . Since 1 percentage difference in achievement score (range, 0-100) might not be considered clinically significant, we changed the unit of achievement score to 10 percentage points and the odds ratios for achievement score were interpreted accordingly.

The population of students sampled included all children in grades 3, 4, and 5 who attended 1 of the 27 schools where the survey was conducted. Of the 3861 students enrolled in these schools, 3530 (91.4%) participated in the survey.

Overall, 194 children (6%) surveyed reported being bullied “always” but did not bully others, 431 (14%) said they bullied others but were not seriously bullied themselves, and 51 children (2%) reported both bullying others and being bullied by others. Four hundred thirty-six (12.4%) did not respond to key bullying questions. The remaining 2416 (78%) reported that they were not involved in bullying. In this study, only 42% of students defined as victims and 44% of those defined as bully-victims said that they had reported their victimization to someone.

The playground was the most likely site (71%) for victimization followed by classrooms (46%), gym classes (40%), lunchrooms (39%), halls and stairs (33%), and buses (28%) among the 245 students who answered this question.

Forty-nine percent of the students were aged 8 to 9 years, and 50% were aged 10 to 11 years. Only 1% were aged 12 to 13 years. The mean (SD) age of the students was 9.6 (1.0) years. Fifty percent of students were female. Approximately one third of the students were from each of the 3 grades (third, fourth, and fifth grades). Sixty-four percent were from ethnic minority groups (27%, African American; 11%, Hispanic; 2%, Native American; and 24%, Asian). Forty-eight percent of students received free lunches.

Table 1 and Table 2 show bivariate associations between bullying status and school and psychosocial outcomes. Mean achievement scores (in percentages) for all bullying-involved groups were significantly lower than the scores of bystanders. Bully-victims had the highest percentage of boys. Bullies and bully-victims were generally older. More victims received free lunch than the other groups. All of the groups involved in bullying were significantly more likely to be suspended or expelled; to feel unsafe, sad, and like they didn’t belong at school; and to endorse cheating if they could get away with it compared with bystanders. Bullies and nonresponders were more likely than bystanders to endorse carrying guns to school, beating up someone who started a fight, and smoking cigarettes. Nonresponders were not more likely to say they felt sad, unsafe, or that they did not belong. No bullying-involved group had lower attendance compared with bystanders.

Multiple logistic regression analyses ( Table 3 ) yielded the following results after controlling for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic background variables.

Lower achievement, feeling unsafe, feeling as if one does not belong at school, and feeling sad were all positively associated with being a victim as opposed to a bystander. A student with a 10% higher achievement score had 20% lower odds of being a victim. Among those who felt unsafe at school, their odds of being a victim were 2.1 times as high as those who felt safe. Feeling as though one did not belong at school was most strongly associated with being a victim; the odds of members of this group being a victim were 4.1 times higher than those who felt they belonged at school. For students who felt sad most days, their odds of being a victim were 1.8 times higher than the odds of being a victim among those who did not feel sad most days.

Students who felt unsafe and sad most days had 2.5 and 1.5 times the odds of being a bully compared with a bystander. Students who endorsed beating someone up who started a fight had twice the odds of being a bully. Being male, 10 to 11 years of age (in the older half of the group), African American, and Native American were also associated with greater odds of being a bully.

Bully-victims

Feeling unsafe, feeling that they did not belong at school, and lower achievement at school were associated with higher odds of being a bully-victim than a bystander. Those children who felt unsafe at school had 5 times the odds of being a bully-victim. Compared with those who felt they belonged at school, students who felt a lack of belonging had 3.1 times higher odds of being a bully-victim. A 10% higher achievement score was associated with 20% lower odds of being a bully-victim.

Nonresponders

Students who said they did not belong at their school had 2.1 times the odds of being nonresponders than bystanders. Compared with white students, Hispanic students had lower odds of being nonresponders.

To summarize the results of this study, students who said they did not feel safe and that they did not belong at school were more likely to be involved in bullying. Children who said they were sad most days had higher odds of being bullies and victims. Lower achievement scores were associated with being a victim or bully-victim. Boys were more likely to be bullies and bully-victims. Children who said it was okay to beat up people who start a fight had higher odds of being bullies. Lower attendance, being suspended or expelled more, and being from low socioeconomic backgrounds were not associated with involvement in bullying in any way. All of these findings were obtained after adjustment for age, sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The take-home message is that elementary school–aged children who are psychologically distressed are more likely to be involved in some form of bullying, and children who struggle academically are more likely to be victims and bully-victims.

Whether the low academic achievement among victims and bully-victims preceded or was a consequence of victimization from bullying cannot be determined from this cross-sectional study. However, previous literature supports the hypothesis that bullying impairs concentration and subsequent academic achievement in victims. 3 , 9 - 11 One study from Great Britain concluded that 11% of 723 elementary, middle, and high school children studied were “extremely stressed” by being bullied. One third of the bullied children in this study reported having impaired concentration and feeling nervous or panicked. 10 A study of 204 Midwestern American middle and high school students found that 90% said they had a drop in grades, an increase in anxiety, and a loss of friends or social life as a result of bullying. 11 One small study conducted in elementary schools in Los Angeles, Calif, used Stanford Achievement Test scores and grades as a measure of academic achievement and found a significant association between low scores and being a victim of bullying. However, this study did not examine bullies or bully-victims. 9 A large US national survey of middle and high school students found that those who perceive themselves as having below-average academic achievement are more likely to be bullies or bully-victims. 3

The longtime argument is that achievement test scores, despite their widespread use, validity, and reliability, are not necessarily a measure of success in school or overall school performance. The limitation is that while these scores are a marker of what is learned, they are not a perfect measure of a number of important things learned in school such as social skills, ability to collaborate, ability to accept criticism and learn from it, helping others, persistence when facing problems, ability to pay attention, and a host of other skills. We do not know whether bullying others or being bullied affects the ability to learn these other important skills. Achievement test scores are a marker, but an imperfect one, of school success.

Anecdotal and other evidence suggests that children who are bullied skip school to avoid being bullied. 2 , 10 , 12 , 13 The Sharp study 10 concluded that 20% of 723 British elementary, middle, and high school children surveyed said they would skip school as a strategy to avoid being bullied. The nationwide 1995 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance study found that 4.5% of the students surveyed in grades 9 through 12 reported that they had missed at least 1 day of school during the 30 preceding days because they had felt unsafe at school or when traveling to or from school. 13 These children were much older than the students in the present study. We include it herein because of the serious lack of information available on this topic in the age group of interest, elementary school students. Along with 1 British study, the present study, focusing on the younger age group and using objective measurement of attendance, did not find that children involved in bullying were associated with lower attendance after adjusting for multiple factors. 14

The symptom of frequent sadness is known to have high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of major depression. 15 Scales for depression in childhood universally include a question about frequent sadness, which means that sadness is a depressive symptom. 16 Both victims and bullies in this study admitted to feeling sad most days compared with children who were bystanders. This suggests that being a bully or a victim of bullying is associated with a key depressive symptom as early as elementary school. This finding adds to the previous literature, which supports a connection between the depressive symptom, sadness, and being involved in bullying among older children. 17 - 24

The primary limitation of this study is that it was cross-sectional so causality cannot be inferred. Another potential limitation is that the study was conducted in 1 school district in the United States, which calls into question whether the results can be generalized to other populations. A third limitation is that determination of whether a child was a victim, a bully, or a bully-victim was determined solely by self-report. However, with the intention of minimizing any potential misclassification of victims based on self-report, only the most severely affected children were defined as bullies and victims for this analysis. It would seem unlikely, because of the negative social stigma attached to being a victim, that a child would say they are always bullied if they truly are not. However, for bullies, there is some evidence to suggest that their social status can be above average. 25 Because of this, students might be inclined to call themselves bullies even if they truly are not.

The questions used for this survey were based on the Olweus Bullying Questionnaire, 5 considered the gold standard for bullying questions. This survey was validated and determined reliable when used in a Scandinavian population. However, the precise wording of the questions was simplified greatly for this study to make the survey appropriate for the young children being studied. There is a definite need for reliability and validity information on both the English version of the Olweus survey and the simplified version of the questions used in this study.

In 2000, the US Secret Service reported that in two thirds of all school shootings that have occurred in the last decade, the attacker felt “bullied, attacked, threatened, or persecuted prior to the incident.” 26 (p7) Schools across the nation are working to implement antibullying interventions. There are antibullying interventions that do have good evidence to support them, although randomized controlled trials are lacking. 1 , 27 The information presented herein provides additional evidence of the need for elementary school personnel to implement bullying prevention programs, not only to prevent school shootings but also to prevent potential barriers to providing education: student feelings of lack of safety, belonging, and sadness. 28 Bullying may be a barrier that impedes effectiveness of teaching, the primary mission of school personnel, yet 1 recent study found that evidence-based, whole-school approaches to bullying are rarely implemented in elementary schools. 29 Implementing antibullying interventions in the elementary years, before bullying becomes a part of school culture, might improve schools’ ability to carry out their educational mission by improving students’ ability to focus on learning and establishing an atmosphere of respect early on.

Correspondence: Gwen M. Glew, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Box 356560, University of Washington School of Medicine, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195-6560 ( [email protected] ).

Accepted for Publication: May 6, 2005.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by a National Research Scientist Award Fellowship (grants MH20021-06 and MH 20021-07) from the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md.

Acknowledgment: Special thanks to Alison Sattler, BA, and Pam Collins, BA, for administrative support.

See More About

Glew GM , Fan M , Katon W , Rivara FP , Kernic MA. Bullying, Psychosocial Adjustment, and Academic Performance in Elementary School. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2005;159(11):1026–1031. doi:10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1026

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Pediatrics in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Student's perception of school bullying and its impact on academic performance: A longitudinal look

2018, Archivos argentinos de pediatria

Bullying among peers has immediate and long-term consequences, as it affects children&#39;s health-related quality of life. The aim was to examine the association between the frequency, type and dynamics of children&#39;s involvement in bullying situations and their academic performance over the school year. Longitudinal study conducted in 2015 in 9 to 12 year-olds in schools of Bahía Blanca, Argentina. Outcome measures: children&#39;s involvement in bullying situations, frequency of participation in bullying and academic performance. Bullying categories were obtained through the Preconceptions of Bullying and Intimidation Among Peers (PRECONCIMEI) questionnaire and academic performance as reflected by each child&#39;s school grades. The survey included 375 children, of which 22.1% (83/375) were repeatedly involved and 30.12% (113/375) were occasionally involved in bullying situations (20.27% [76/375] reported having participated by the year end but not at the beginning, and 9.85% [...

Related Papers

Margarette Bayer

Rinus Voeten

Esmie Mendoza

“If there’s one goal of this conference, it’s to dispel the myth that bullying is just a harmless rite of passage or an inevitable part of growing up.” This is an excerpt of the speech of US President Barack Obama on a White House Conference back in 2011. As claimed by Olweus (1978), bullying is an important but often neglected issue that can hinder performance in school and is considered as a serious and worldwide phenomenon. Bullying can also be in the form of Verbal and Non-verbal, it is an unwanted aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power, imbalance students who are victimized by their fellow students who bullies them may lead to decrease in academic achievements, it creates more negative aspects, such as: stress and depression.

Tonya Davis

ABSTRACT The purpose of the study was to examine teacher perceptions and teacher characteristics about bullying and to see how distinctions in these variables relate or affect teacher attitudes, when responding to bullying situations in preschool classrooms. The researcher was also interested in investigating how other variables such as preschool program type (i.e., community- based/center models or non-community/school-based models) and race impacted teacher perception when responding to preschool bullying scenarios. Survey data were collected from 133 preschool teachers working in a nonprofit agency serving preschool children across a 13 county area in one state. The study used the Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire-Modified-Revised (BAQ-M Revised; Davis, Burnham, & Mills, 2015). The revised measure was based on Yoon and Kerber’s (2003) questionnaire referred to as the Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire Modified (BAQ-M, 2003). The revised measure maintained the original six vignettes depicting three types of bullying: physical, social, and relational bullying. The revision to the instrument involved the creation of additional questions after each vignette to improve the content validity of scale constructs (i.e., Seriousness, Empathy, and Response). Teacher self-perceptions about classroom behavior management was measured using the Efficacy in Classroom Management subscale of the Teachers Sense of Efficacy Scale Short Form (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). ANOVAS were used to analyze the first research question. Significant differences were found between Black and White teachers on the construct of Empathy based upon race. Specifically, Black teachers scored significantly higher on the construct of Empathy. A two-way ii ANOVA tested the independent variables of race and setting on the construct of Seriousness. Results of the ANOVA indicated that there were significant differences in race. Regression models were used to analyze the second research question. The results of a four-predictor model comprised on Seriousness, Empathy, Response, and Efficacy in Classroom Management was significant. However, the classroom management subscale of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy) was not found to be a significant predictor in the model.

THE suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, the 14-year-old boy from western New York who killed himself last Sunday after being tormented by his classmates for being gay, is appalling. His story is a classic case of bullying: he was aggressively and repeatedly victimized. Horrific episodes like this have sparked conversations about cyberbullying and created immense pressure on regulators and educators to do something, anything, to make it stop.

Harriet Åbrandt

Bullying is a social phenomenon. About 30% of school children are involved in bullying as victims, bullies, or bully/ victims. The victims of bullying suffer multiple negative consequences, including poor social and academic adjustment, depression, and anxiety. This paper extends Farrington and Ttofi's (2009) meta-analysis of controlled trials of 44 bullying interventions, which suggests that bullying programs are effective in decreasing bullying and victimization. We review controlled trials of bullying interventions published from June, 2009 through April, 2013, focusing on substantive results across 32 studies that examined 24 bullying interventions. Of the 32 articles, 17 assess both bullying and victimization, 10 assess victimization only, and 5 assess bullying only. Of the 22 studies examining bullying perpetration, 11 (50%) observed significant effects; of the 27 studies examining bullying victimization, 18 (67%) reported significant effects. Although the overall findings are mixed, the data suggest that interventions implemented outside of the United States with homogeneous samples are more successful than programs implemented in the United States, where samples tend to be more heterogeneous. Few studies have measured bullying with sufficient precision to have construct validity. Finding strong measures to assess the complex construct of bullying remains a major challenge for the field.

AUB Library

Hanadi Mirza

One of the major sources of insecurity that threatens students’ safety at school, mainly the middle school, is bullying. Physical harm, tough words and rumors, fights, teasing, and other violent behaviors are some examples of bullying. Bullying can be as dramatic as pushing students to commit suicide. Various factors contribute to school bullying and victimization namely school, peer, and social pressures, home environment, inter-parental violence, and violent video games. Existing literature provides some measures to deal with bullying behaviors by developing a school policy, which includes the combined efforts of students, teachers, parents, and administrators. Most researches focused on the middle school years identifying them as the most violent in terms of the pervasiveness of bullying in schools. Very few studies traced that violence back to exploring how those students behaved during their elementary school years or considered that in order to prevent bullying behavior schools should take measures before the students make the transition from elementary to middle school- an event considered to be a major reason for that surge in violence in the middle school cycle. The purpose of this study is to explore bullying in a Lebanese elementary private school from the teachers’, administrators’ and parents’ perspectives while focusing on the following: 1) the nature of such behavior, 2) its underlying causes, and 3) the ways used to prevent/stop bullying. Data was collected through eleven individual and focus group interviews with the school principal, supervisors, the school psychologist, elementary teachers, teachers of the Support System, coordinators, and parents. Results of the data analysis were compared with the available literature. Findings showed that bullying incidences are nowadays more verbal and less physical due to the measures taken at school; however, dealing with bullying is left to the concern of the individual school members. Administrators and teachers complained about parents for their poor parental cooperation and involvement who in turn held the school members accountable for their inability to deal/stop bullying at school and protect their kids’ safety. The study concluded with recommendations to school practitioners on how to establish measures to reduce and prevent bullying in schools.

Carla Moleiro

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Journal of Educational Psychology

Elisa Poskiparta

RELATED PAPERS

Tonja Nansel

Nafsika Antoniadou

Joseph Zambo

Aggressive Behavior

Siegwart Lindenberg

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Makarena Saavedra

Chantelle Galea

Self-Restraint a Measure against Committing Acts of Bullying

Mary Jane Malapitan

Chen Ji-Kang

DR. DAVID C . BUENO

Psychological Assessment

Pauline Jansen

Melisa Castellanos

Faye Mishna

Miggy Baluyut

Psychology in The Schools

Paul Flaspohler , Karin Vanderzee

AKAPO OLUSEGUN

Children and Youth Services Review

Paul Smokowski

School psychology review

Susan Swearer , Rhonda Turner

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Massimo Santinello

Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH

Elisa Cantone , Ernesto D'Aloja

Lorena Paredes

Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology

Dr Chhavi Mittal Goyal

Davi Ramkallawan

Ybl Rym Yaniham

Cecilia L . Calub

National Survey on Bullying and Violent Extremism In the Education System of Albania

Edmond Dragoti , Emanuela Ismaili, Dr.

European Journal of School Psychology

Gianluca Gini

Hapindi Arista

Journal of Behavioral …

Jeffrey Sprague , Tary J Tobin , Shanna Hagan Burke

Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Ernest Hodges

Tom Snijders

Leslie Tutty , David Este , Shannon Dobko , Lee Tunstall , Jocelyn Proulx

Antigoni Lamprou

University of South Africa

Kelly A Young

CEPS Journal , Anamarija Žic Ralić , Snježana Sekušak-Galešev

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 December 2021

Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study

• Håkan Källmén 1 &
• Mats Hallgren   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0599-2403 2  

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health volume  15 , Article number:  74 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

89k Accesses

13 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

To examine recent trends in bullying and mental health problems among adolescents and the association between them.

A questionnaire measuring mental health problems, bullying at school, socio-economic status, and the school environment was distributed to all secondary school students aged 15 (school-year 9) and 18 (school-year 11) in Stockholm during 2014, 2018, and 2020 (n = 32,722). Associations between bullying and mental health problems were assessed using logistic regression analyses adjusting for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors.

The prevalence of bullying remained stable and was highest among girls in year 9; range = 4.9% to 16.9%. Mental health problems increased; range = + 1.2% (year 9 boys) to + 4.6% (year 11 girls) and were consistently higher among girls (17.2% in year 11, 2020). In adjusted models, having been bullied was detrimentally associated with mental health (OR = 2.57 [2.24–2.96]). Reports of mental health problems were four times higher among boys who had been bullied compared to those not bullied. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.4 times higher.

Conclusions

Exposure to bullying at school was associated with higher odds of mental health problems. Boys appear to be more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls.

Introduction

Bullying involves repeated hurtful actions between peers where an imbalance of power exists [ 1 ]. Arseneault et al. [ 2 ] conducted a review of the mental health consequences of bullying for children and adolescents and found that bullying is associated with severe symptoms of mental health problems, including self-harm and suicidality. Bullying was shown to have detrimental effects that persist into late adolescence and contribute independently to mental health problems. Updated reviews have presented evidence indicating that bullying is causative of mental illness in many adolescents [ 3 , 4 ].

There are indications that mental health problems are increasing among adolescents in some Nordic countries. Hagquist et al. [ 5 ] examined trends in mental health among Scandinavian adolescents (n = 116, 531) aged 11–15 years between 1993 and 2014. Mental health problems were operationalized as difficulty concentrating, sleep disorders, headache, stomach pain, feeling tense, sad and/or dizzy. The study revealed increasing rates of adolescent mental health problems in all four counties (Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark), with Sweden experiencing the sharpest increase among older adolescents, particularly girls. Worsening adolescent mental health has also been reported in the United Kingdom. A study of 28,100 school-aged adolescents in England found that two out of five young people scored above thresholds for emotional problems, conduct problems or hyperactivity [ 6 ]. Female gender, deprivation, high needs status (educational/social), ethnic background, and older age were all associated with higher odds of experiencing mental health difficulties.

Bullying is shown to increase the risk of poor mental health and may partly explain these detrimental changes. Le et al. [ 7 ] reported an inverse association between bullying and mental health among 11–16-year-olds in Vietnam. They also found that poor mental health can make some children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying at school. Bayer et al. [ 8 ] examined links between bullying at school and mental health among 8–9-year-old children in Australia. Those who experienced bullying more than once a week had poorer mental health than children who experienced bullying less frequently. Friendships moderated this association, such that children with more friends experienced fewer mental health problems (protective effect). Hysing et al. [ 9 ] investigated the association between experiences of bullying (as a victim or perpetrator) and mental health, sleep disorders, and school performance among 16–19 year olds from Norway (n = 10,200). Participants were categorized as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (that is, victims who also bullied others). All three categories were associated with worse mental health, school performance, and sleeping difficulties. Those who had been bullied also reported more emotional problems, while those who bullied others reported more conduct disorders [ 9 ].

As most adolescents spend a considerable amount of time at school, the school environment has been a major focus of mental health research [ 10 , 11 ]. In a recent review, Saminathen et al. [ 12 ] concluded that school is a potential protective factor against mental health problems, as it provides a socially supportive context and prepares students for higher education and employment. However, it may also be the primary setting for protracted bullying and stress [ 13 ]. Another factor associated with adolescent mental health is parental socio-economic status (SES) [ 14 ]. A systematic review indicated that lower parental SES is associated with poorer adolescent mental health [ 15 ]. However, no previous studies have examined whether SES modifies or attenuates the association between bullying and mental health. Similarly, it remains unclear whether school related factors, such as school grades and the school environment, influence the relationship between bullying and mental health. This information could help to identify those adolescents most at risk of harm from bullying.

To address these issues, we investigated the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems among Swedish adolescents aged 15–18 years between 2014 and 2020 using a population-based school survey. We also examined associations between bullying at school and mental health problems adjusting for relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and school-related factors. We hypothesized that: (1) bullying and adolescent mental health problems have increased over time; (2) There is an association between bullying victimization and mental health, so that mental health problems are more prevalent among those who have been victims of bullying; and (3) that school-related factors would attenuate the association between bullying and mental health.

Participants

The Stockholm school survey is completed every other year by students in lower secondary school (year 9—compulsory) and upper secondary school (year 11). The survey is mandatory for public schools, but voluntary for private schools. The purpose of the survey is to help inform decision making by local authorities that will ultimately improve students’ wellbeing. The questions relate to life circumstances, including SES, schoolwork, bullying, drug use, health, and crime. Non-completers are those who were absent from school when the survey was completed (< 5%). Response rates vary from year to year but are typically around 75%. For the current study data were available for 2014, 2018 and 2020. In 2014; 5235 boys and 5761 girls responded, in 2018; 5017 boys and 5211 girls responded, and in 2020; 5633 boys and 5865 girls responded (total n = 32,722). Data for the exposure variable, bullied at school, were missing for 4159 students, leaving 28,563 participants in the crude model. The fully adjusted model (described below) included 15,985 participants. The mean age in grade 9 was 15.3 years (SD = 0.51) and in grade 11, 17.3 years (SD = 0.61). As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5). Details of the survey are available via a website [ 16 ], and are described in a previous paper [ 17 ].

Students completed the questionnaire during a school lesson, placed it in a sealed envelope and handed it to their teacher. Student were permitted the entire lesson (about 40 min) to complete the questionnaire and were informed that participation was voluntary (and that they were free to cancel their participation at any time without consequences). Students were also informed that the Origo Group was responsible for collection of the data on behalf of the City of Stockholm.

Study outcome

Mental health problems were assessed by using a modified version of the Psychosomatic Problem Scale [ 18 ] shown to be appropriate for children and adolescents and invariant across gender and years. The scale was later modified [ 19 ]. In the modified version, items about difficulty concentrating and feeling giddy were deleted and an item about ‘life being great to live’ was added. Seven different symptoms or problems, such as headaches, depression, feeling fear, stomach problems, difficulty sleeping, believing it’s great to live (coded negatively as seldom or rarely) and poor appetite were used. Students who responded (on a 5-point scale) that any of these problems typically occurs ‘at least once a week’ were considered as having indicators of a mental health problem. Cronbach alpha was 0.69 across the whole sample. Adding these problem areas, a total index was created from 0 to 7 mental health symptoms. Those who scored between 0 and 4 points on the total symptoms index were considered to have a low indication of mental health problems (coded as 0); those who scored between 5 and 7 symptoms were considered as likely having mental health problems (coded as 1).

Primary exposure

Experiences of bullying were measured by the following two questions: Have you felt bullied or harassed during the past school year? Have you been involved in bullying or harassing other students during this school year? Alternatives for the first question were: yes or no with several options describing how the bullying had taken place (if yes). Alternatives indicating emotional bullying were feelings of being mocked, ridiculed, socially excluded, or teased. Alternatives indicating physical bullying were being beaten, kicked, forced to do something against their will, robbed, or locked away somewhere. The response alternatives for the second question gave an estimation of how often the respondent had participated in bullying others (from once to several times a week). Combining the answers to these two questions, five different categories of bullying were identified: (1) never been bullied and never bully others; (2) victims of emotional (verbal) bullying who have never bullied others; (3) victims of physical bullying who have never bullied others; (4) victims of bullying who have also bullied others; and (5) perpetrators of bullying, but not victims. As the number of positive cases in the last three categories was low (range = 3–15 cases) bully categories 2–4 were combined into one primary exposure variable: ‘bullied at school’.

Assessment year was operationalized as the year when data was collected: 2014, 2018, and 2020. Age was operationalized as school grade 9 (15–16 years) or 11 (17–18 years). Gender was self-reported (boy or girl). The school situation To assess experiences of the school situation, students responded to 18 statements about well-being in school, participation in important school matters, perceptions of their teachers, and teaching quality. Responses were given on a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘do not agree at all’ to ‘fully agree’. To reduce the 18-items down to their essential factors, we performed a principal axis factor analysis. Results showed that the 18 statements formed five factors which, according to the Kaiser criterion (eigen values > 1) explained 56% of the covariance in the student’s experience of the school situation. The five factors identified were: (1) Participation in school; (2) Interesting and meaningful work; (3) Feeling well at school; (4) Structured school lessons; and (5) Praise for achievements. For each factor, an index was created that was dichotomised (poor versus good circumstance) using the median-split and dummy coded with ‘good circumstance’ as reference. A description of the items included in each factor is available as Additional file 1 . Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed with three questions about the education level of the student’s mother and father (dichotomized as university degree versus not), and the amount of spending money the student typically received for entertainment each month (> SEK 1000 [approximately $120] versus less). Higher parental education and more spending money were used as reference categories. School grades in Swedish, English, and mathematics were measured separately on a 7-point scale and dichotomized as high (grades A, B, and C) versus low (grades D, E, and F). High school grades were used as the reference category.

Statistical analyses

The prevalence of mental health problems and bullying at school are presented using descriptive statistics, stratified by survey year (2014, 2018, 2020), gender, and school year (9 versus 11). As noted, we reduced the 18-item questionnaire assessing school function down to five essential factors by conducting a principal axis factor analysis (see Additional file 1 ). We then calculated the association between bullying at school (defined above) and mental health problems using multivariable logistic regression. Results are presented as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (Cis). To assess the contribution of SES and school-related factors to this association, three models are presented: Crude, Model 1 adjusted for demographic factors: age, gender, and assessment year; Model 2 adjusted for Model 1 plus SES (parental education and student spending money), and Model 3 adjusted for Model 2 plus school-related factors (school grades and the five factors identified in the principal factor analysis). These covariates were entered into the regression models in three blocks, where the final model represents the fully adjusted analyses. In all models, the category ‘not bullied at school’ was used as the reference. Pseudo R-square was calculated to estimate what proportion of the variance in mental health problems was explained by each model. Unlike the R-square statistic derived from linear regression, the Pseudo R-square statistic derived from logistic regression gives an indicator of the explained variance, as opposed to an exact estimate, and is considered informative in identifying the relative contribution of each model to the outcome [ 20 ]. All analyses were performed using SPSS v. 26.0.

Prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems

Estimates of the prevalence of bullying at school and mental health problems across the 12 strata of data (3 years × 2 school grades × 2 genders) are shown in Table 1 . The prevalence of bullying at school increased minimally (< 1%) between 2014 and 2020, except among girls in grade 11 (2.5% increase). Mental health problems increased between 2014 and 2020 (range = 1.2% [boys in year 11] to 4.6% [girls in year 11]); were three to four times more prevalent among girls (range = 11.6% to 17.2%) compared to boys (range = 2.6% to 4.9%); and were more prevalent among older adolescents compared to younger adolescents (range = 1% to 3.1% higher). Pooling all data, reports of mental health problems were four times more prevalent among boys who had been victims of bullying compared to those who reported no experiences with bullying. The corresponding figure for girls was two and a half times as prevalent.

Associations between bullying at school and mental health problems

Table 2 shows the association between bullying at school and mental health problems after adjustment for relevant covariates. Demographic factors, including female gender (OR = 3.87; CI 3.48–4.29), older age (OR = 1.38, CI 1.26–1.50), and more recent assessment year (OR = 1.18, CI 1.13–1.25) were associated with higher odds of mental health problems. In Model 2, none of the included SES variables (parental education and student spending money) were associated with mental health problems. In Model 3 (fully adjusted), the following school-related factors were associated with higher odds of mental health problems: lower grades in Swedish (OR = 1.42, CI 1.22–1.67); uninteresting or meaningless schoolwork (OR = 2.44, CI 2.13–2.78); feeling unwell at school (OR = 1.64, CI 1.34–1.85); unstructured school lessons (OR = 1.31, CI = 1.16–1.47); and no praise for achievements (OR = 1.19, CI 1.06–1.34). After adjustment for all covariates, being bullied at school remained associated with higher odds of mental health problems (OR = 2.57; CI 2.24–2.96). Demographic and school-related factors explained 12% and 6% of the variance in mental health problems, respectively (Pseudo R-Square). The inclusion of socioeconomic factors did not alter the variance explained.

Our findings indicate that mental health problems increased among Swedish adolescents between 2014 and 2020, while the prevalence of bullying at school remained stable (< 1% increase), except among girls in year 11, where the prevalence increased by 2.5%. As previously reported [ 5 , 6 ], mental health problems were more common among girls and older adolescents. These findings align with previous studies showing that adolescents who are bullied at school are more likely to experience mental health problems compared to those who are not bullied [ 3 , 4 , 9 ]. This detrimental relationship was observed after adjustment for school-related factors shown to be associated with adolescent mental health [ 10 ].

A novel finding was that boys who had been bullied at school reported a four-times higher prevalence of mental health problems compared to non-bullied boys. The corresponding figure for girls was 2.5 times higher for those who were bullied compared to non-bullied girls, which could indicate that boys are more vulnerable to the deleterious effects of bullying than girls. Alternatively, it may indicate that boys are (on average) bullied more frequently or more intensely than girls, leading to worse mental health. Social support could also play a role; adolescent girls often have stronger social networks than boys and could be more inclined to voice concerns about bullying to significant others, who in turn may offer supports which are protective [ 21 ]. Related studies partly confirm this speculative explanation. An Estonian study involving 2048 children and adolescents aged 10–16 years found that, compared to girls, boys who had been bullied were more likely to report severe distress, measured by poor mental health and feelings of hopelessness [ 22 ].

Other studies suggest that heritable traits, such as the tendency to internalize problems and having low self-esteem are associated with being a bully-victim [ 23 ]. Genetics are understood to explain a large proportion of bullying-related behaviors among adolescents. A study from the Netherlands involving 8215 primary school children found that genetics explained approximately 65% of the risk of being a bully-victim [ 24 ]. This proportion was similar for boys and girls. Higher than average body mass index (BMI) is another recognized risk factor [ 25 ]. A recent Australian trial involving 13 schools and 1087 students (mean age = 13 years) targeted adolescents with high-risk personality traits (hopelessness, anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, sensation seeking) to reduce bullying at school; both as victims and perpetrators [ 26 ]. There was no significant intervention effect for bullying victimization or perpetration in the total sample. In a secondary analysis, compared to the control schools, intervention school students showed greater reductions in victimization, suicidal ideation, and emotional symptoms. These findings potentially support targeting high-risk personality traits in bullying prevention [ 26 ].

The relative stability of bullying at school between 2014 and 2020 suggests that other factors may better explain the increase in mental health problems seen here. Many factors could be contributing to these changes, including the increasingly competitive labour market, higher demands for education, and the rapid expansion of social media [ 19 , 27 , 28 ]. A recent Swedish study involving 29,199 students aged between 11 and 16 years found that the effects of school stress on psychosomatic symptoms have become stronger over time (1993–2017) and have increased more among girls than among boys [ 10 ]. Research is needed examining possible gender differences in perceived school stress and how these differences moderate associations between bullying and mental health.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of the current study include the large participant sample from diverse schools; public and private, theoretical and practical orientations. The survey included items measuring diverse aspects of the school environment; factors previously linked to adolescent mental health but rarely included as covariates in studies of bullying and mental health. Some limitations are also acknowledged. These data are cross-sectional which means that the direction of the associations cannot be determined. Moreover, all the variables measured were self-reported. Previous studies indicate that students tend to under-report bullying and mental health problems [ 29 ]; thus, our results may underestimate the prevalence of these behaviors.

In conclusion, consistent with our stated hypotheses, we observed an increase in self-reported mental health problems among Swedish adolescents, and a detrimental association between bullying at school and mental health problems. Although bullying at school does not appear to be the primary explanation for these changes, bullying was detrimentally associated with mental health after adjustment for relevant demographic, socio-economic, and school-related factors, confirming our third hypothesis. The finding that boys are potentially more vulnerable than girls to the deleterious effects of bullying should be replicated in future studies, and the mechanisms investigated. Future studies should examine the longitudinal association between bullying and mental health, including which factors mediate/moderate this relationship. Epigenetic studies are also required to better understand the complex interaction between environmental and biological risk factors for adolescent mental health [ 24 ].

Availability of data and materials

Data requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis; please email the corresponding author.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Olweus D. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Ann Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9(9):751–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L, Bowes L, Shakoor S. Bullying victimization in youths and mental health problems: “Much ado about nothing”? Psychol Med. 2010;40(5):717–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291709991383 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arseneault L. The long-term impact of bullying victimization on mental health. World Psychiatry. 2017;16(1):27–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20399 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moore SE, Norman RE, Suetani S, Thomas HJ, Sly PD, Scott JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;7(1):60–76. https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60 .

Hagquist C, Due P, Torsheim T, Valimaa R. Cross-country comparisons of trends in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms—a Rasch analysis of HBSC data from four Nordic countries. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1097-x .

Deighton J, Lereya ST, Casey P, Patalay P, Humphrey N, Wolpert M. Prevalence of mental health problems in schools: poverty and other risk factors among 28 000 adolescents in England. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;215(3):565–7. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.19 .

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le HTH, Tran N, Campbell MA, Gatton ML, Nguyen HT, Dunne MP. Mental health problems both precede and follow bullying among adolescents and the effects differ by gender: a cross-lagged panel analysis of school-based longitudinal data in Vietnam. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0291-x .

Bayer JK, Mundy L, Stokes I, Hearps S, Allen N, Patton G. Bullying, mental health and friendship in Australian primary school children. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2018;23(4):334–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12261 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hysing M, Askeland KG, La Greca AM, Solberg ME, Breivik K, Sivertsen B. Bullying involvement in adolescence: implications for sleep, mental health, and academic outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519853409 .

Hogberg B, Strandh M, Hagquist C. Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years—the role of school-related stress. Soc Sci Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890 .

Kidger J, Araya R, Donovan J, Gunnell D. The effect of the school environment on the emotional health of adolescents: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012;129(5):925–49. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2248 .

Saminathen MG, Låftman SB, Modin B. En fungerande skola för alla: skolmiljön som skyddsfaktor för ungas psykiska välbefinnande. [A functioning school for all: the school environment as a protective factor for young people’s mental well-being]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2020;97(5–6):804–16.

Google Scholar  

Bibou-Nakou I, Tsiantis J, Assimopoulos H, Chatzilambou P, Giannakopoulou D. School factors related to bullying: a qualitative study of early adolescent students. Soc Psychol Educ. 2012;15(2):125–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9179-1 .

Vukojevic M, Zovko A, Talic I, Tanovic M, Resic B, Vrdoljak I, Splavski B. Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children—literature review. Acta Clin Croat. 2017;56(4):742–8. https://doi.org/10.20471/acc.2017.56.04.23 .

Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2013;90:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026 .

Stockholm City. Stockholmsenkät (The Stockholm Student Survey). 2021. https://start.stockholm/aktuellt/nyheter/2020/09/presstraff-stockholmsenkaten-2020/ . Accessed 19 Nov 2021.

Zeebari Z, Lundin A, Dickman PW, Hallgren M. Are changes in alcohol consumption among swedish youth really occurring “in concert”? A new perspective using quantile regression. Alc Alcohol. 2017;52(4):487–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx020 .

Hagquist C. Psychometric properties of the PsychoSomatic Problems Scale: a Rasch analysis on adolescent data. Social Indicat Res. 2008;86(3):511–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9186-3 .

Hagquist C. Ungas psykiska hälsa i Sverige–komplexa trender och stora kunskapsluckor [Young people’s mental health in Sweden—complex trends and large knowledge gaps]. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift [Soc Med]. 2013;90(5):671–83.

Wu W, West SG. Detecting misspecification in mean structures for growth curve models: performance of pseudo R(2)s and concordance correlation coefficients. Struct Equ Model. 2013;20(3):455–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2013.797829 .

Holt MK, Espelage DL. Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. J Youth Adolscence. 2007;36(8):984–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9153-3 .

Mark L, Varnik A, Sisask M. Who suffers most from being involved in bullying-bully, victim, or bully-victim? J Sch Health. 2019;89(2):136–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12720 .

Tsaousis I. The relationship of self-esteem to bullying perpetration and peer victimization among schoolchildren and adolescents: a meta-analytic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2016;31:186–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.005 .

Veldkamp SAM, Boomsma DI, de Zeeuw EL, van Beijsterveldt CEM, Bartels M, Dolan CV, van Bergen E. Genetic and environmental influences on different forms of bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and their co-occurrence. Behav Genet. 2019;49(5):432–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09968-5 .

Janssen I, Craig WM, Boyce WF, Pickett W. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2004;113(5):1187–94. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.113.5.1187 .

Kelly EV, Newton NC, Stapinski LA, Conrod PJ, Barrett EL, Champion KE, Teesson M. A novel approach to tackling bullying in schools: personality-targeted intervention for adolescent victims and bullies in Australia. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;59(4):508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.04.010 .

Gunnell D, Kidger J, Elvidge H. Adolescent mental health in crisis. BMJ. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k2608 .

O’Reilly M, Dogra N, Whiteman N, Hughes J, Eruyar S, Reilly P. Is social media bad for mental health and wellbeing? Exploring the perspectives of adolescents. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018;23:601–13.

Unnever JD, Cornell DG. Middle school victims of bullying: who reports being bullied? Aggr Behav. 2004;30(5):373–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20030 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Department for Social Affairs, Stockholm, for permission to use data from the Stockholm School Survey.

Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. None to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems (STAD), Center for Addiction Research and Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden

Håkan Källmén

Epidemiology of Psychiatric Conditions, Substance Use and Social Environment (EPiCSS), Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Level 6, Solnavägen 1e, Solna, Sweden

Mats Hallgren

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HK conceived the study and analyzed the data (with input from MH). HK and MH interpreted the data and jointly wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Hallgren .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

As the data are completely anonymous, the study was exempt from ethical approval according to an earlier decision from the Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (2010-241 31-5).

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Principal factor analysis description.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Källmén, H., Hallgren, M. Bullying at school and mental health problems among adolescents: a repeated cross-sectional study. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 15 , 74 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Download citation

Received : 05 October 2021

Accepted : 23 November 2021

Published : 14 December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00425-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mental health
• Adolescents
• School-related factors
• Gender differences

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health

ISSN: 1753-2000

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]