bullying and harassment case study

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Teens and cyberbullying 2022, nearly half of u.s. teens have been bullied or harassed online, with physical appearance being seen as a relatively common reason why. older teen girls are especially likely to report being targeted by online abuse overall and because of their appearance.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand teens’ experiences with and views on bullying and harassment online. For this analysis, we surveyed 1,316 U.S. teens. The survey was conducted online by Ipsos from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

This research was reviewed and approved by an external institutional review board (IRB), Advarra, which is an independent committee of experts that specializes in helping to protect the rights of research participants.

Ipsos recruited the teens via their parents who were a part of its  KnowledgePanel , a probability-based web panel recruited primarily through national, random sampling of residential addresses. The survey is weighted to be representative of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 who live with parents by age, gender, race, ethnicity, household income and other categories.

Here are the  questions used for this report , along with responses, and  its methodology .

While bullying existed long before the internet, the rise of smartphones and social media has brought a new and more public arena into play for this aggressive behavior.

Nearly half of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 (46%) report ever experiencing at least one of six cyberbullying behaviors asked about in a Pew Research Center survey conducted April 14-May 4, 2022. 1

The most commonly reported behavior in this survey is name-calling, with 32% of teens saying they have been called an offensive name online or on their cellphone. Smaller shares say they have had false rumors spread about them online (22%) or have been sent explicit images they didn’t ask for (17%).

Some 15% of teens say they have experienced someone other than a parent constantly asking them where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with, while 10% say they have been physically threatened and 7% of teens say they have had explicit images of them shared without their consent.

In total, 28% of teens have experienced multiple types of cyberbullying.

Defining cyberbullying in this report

This report measures cyberbullying of teens using six distinct behaviors:

• Offensive name-calling
• Spreading of false rumors about them
• Receiving explicit images they didn’t ask for
• Physical threats
• Constantly being asked where they are, what they’re doing, or who they’re with by someone other than a parent
• Having explicit images of them shared without their consent

Teens who indicate they have personally experienced any of these behaviors online or while using their cellphone are considered targets of cyberbullying in this report. The terms “cyberbullying” and “online harassment” are used interchangeably throughout this report.

Age and gender are related to teens’ cyberbullying experiences, with older teen girls being especially likely to face this abuse

Teens’ experiences with online harassment vary by age. Some 49% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced at least one of the six online behaviors, compared with 42% of those ages 13 to 14. While similar shares of older and younger teens report being the target of name-calling or rumor spreading, older teens are more likely than their younger counterparts (22% vs. 11%) to say someone has sent them explicit images they didn’t ask for, an act sometimes referred to as cyberflashing ; had someone share explicit images of them without their consent, in what is also known as revenge porn (8% vs. 4%); or been the target of persistent questioning about their whereabouts and activities (17% vs. 12%).

While there is no gender difference in having ever experienced online abuse, teen girls are more likely than teen boys to say false rumors have been spread about them. But further differences are seen when looking at age and gender together: 15- to 17-year-old girls stand out for being particularly likely to have faced any cyberbullying, compared with younger teen girls and teen boys of any age. Some 54% of girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least one of the six cyberbullying behaviors, while 44% of 15- to 17-year-old boys and 41% of boys and girls ages 13 to 14 say the same. These older teen girls are also more likely than younger teen girls and teen boys of any age to report being the target of false rumors and constant monitoring by someone other than a parent.

White, Black and Hispanic teens do not statistically differ in having ever been harassed online, but specific types of online attacks are more prevalent among certain groups. 2 For example, White teens are more likely to report being targeted by false rumors than Black teens. Hispanic teens are more likely than White or Black teens to say they have been asked constantly where they are, what they’re doing or who they’re with by someone other than a parent.

There are also differences by household income when it comes to physical threats. Teens who are from households making less than $30,000 annually are twice as likely as teens living in households making $75,000 or more a year to say they have been physically threatened online (16% vs. 8%).

Beyond those differences related to specific harassing behaviors, older teen girls are particularly likely to say they experience multiple types of online harassment. Some 32% of teen girls have experienced two or more types of online harassment asked about in this survey, while 24% of teen boys say the same. And 15- to 17-year-olds are more likely than 13- to 14-year-olds to have been the target of multiple types of cyberbullying (32% vs. 22%).

These differences are largely driven by older teen girls: 38% of teen girls ages 15 to 17 have experienced at least two of the harassing behaviors asked about in this survey, while roughly a quarter of younger teen girls and teen boys of any age say the same.

Beyond demographic differences, being the target of these behaviors and facing multiple types of these behaviors also vary by the amount of time youth spend online. Teens who say they are online almost constantly are not only more likely to have ever been harassed online than those who report being online less often (53% vs 40%), but are also more likely to have faced multiple forms of online abuse (37% vs. 21%).

These are some of the findings from a Pew Research Center online survey of 1,316 U.S. teens conducted from April 14 to May 4, 2022.

Black teens are about twice as likely as Hispanic or White teens to say they think their race or ethnicity made them a target of online abuse

There are numerous reasons why a teen may be targeted with online abuse. This survey asked youth if they believed their physical appearance, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual orientation or political views were a factor in them being the target of abusive behavior online.

Teens are most likely to say their physical appearance made them the target of cyberbullying. Some 15% of all teens think they were cyberbullied because of their appearance.

About one-in-ten teens say they were targeted because of their gender (10%) or their race or ethnicity (9%). Teens less commonly report being harassed for their sexual orientation or their political views – just 5% each.

Looking at these numbers in a different way, 31% of teens who have personally experienced online harassment or bullying think they were targeted because of their physical appearance. About one-in-five cyberbullied teens say they were targeted due to their gender (22%) or their racial or ethnic background (20%). And roughly one-in-ten affected teens point to their sexual orientation (12%) or their political views (11%) as a reason why they were targeted with harassment or bullying online.

The reasons teens cite for why they were targeted for cyberbullying are largely similar across major demographic groups, but there are a few key differences. For example, teen girls overall are more likely than teen boys to say they have been cyberbullied because of their physical appearance (17% vs. 11%) or their gender (14% vs. 6%). Older teens are also more likely to say they have been harassed online because of their appearance: 17% of 15- to 17-year-olds have experienced cyberbullying because of their physical appearance, compared with 11% of teens ages 13 to 14.

Older teen girls are particularly likely to think they have been harassed online because of their physical appearance: 21% of all 15- to 17-year-old girls think they have been targeted for this reason. This compares with about one-in-ten younger teen girls or teen boys, regardless of age, who think they have been cyberbullied because of their appearance.

A teen’s racial or ethnic background relates to whether they report having been targeted for cyberbullying because of race or ethnicity. Some 21% of Black teens report being made a target because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 11% of Hispanic teens and an even smaller share of White teens (4%).

There are no partisan differences in teens being targeted for their political views, with 5% of those who identify as either Democratic or Republican – including those who lean toward each party – saying they think their political views contributed to them being cyberbullied.

Black or Hispanic teens are more likely than White teens to say cyberbullying is a major problem for people their age

In addition to measuring teens’ own personal experiences with cyberbullying, the survey also sought to understand young people’s views about online harassment more generally.

The vast majority of teens say online harassment and online bullying are a problem for people their age, with 53% saying they are a major problem. Just 6% of teens think they are not a problem.

Certain demographic groups stand out for how much of a problem they say cyberbullying is. Seven-in-ten Black teens and 62% of Hispanic teens say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with 46% of White teens. Teens from households making under $75,000 a year are similarly inclined to call this type of harassment a major problem, with 62% making this claim, compared with 47% of teens from more affluent homes. Teen girls are also more likely than boys to view cyberbullying as a major problem.

Views also vary by community type. Some 65% of teens living in urban areas say online harassment and bullying are a major problem for people their age, compared with about half of suburban and rural teens.

Partisan differences appear as well: Six-in-ten Democratic teens say this is a major problem for people their age, compared with 44% of Republican teens saying this.

Roughly three-quarters of teens or more think elected officials and social media sites aren’t adequately addressing online abuse

In recent years, there have been several initiatives and programs aimed at curtailing bad behavior online, but teens by and large view some of those behind these efforts – including social media companies and politicians – in a decidedly negative light.

According to teens, parents are doing the best of the five groups asked about in terms of addressing online harassment and online bullying, with 66% of teens saying parents are doing at least a good job, including one-in-five saying it is an excellent job. Roughly four-in-ten teens report thinking teachers (40%) or law enforcement (37%) are doing a good or excellent job addressing online abuse. A quarter of teens say social media sites are doing at least a good job addressing online harassment and cyberbullying, and just 18% say the same of elected officials. In fact, 44% of teens say elected officials have done a poor job addressing online harassment and online bullying.

Teens who have been cyberbullied are more critical of how various groups have addressed online bullying than those who haven’t

Teens who have experienced harassment or bullying online have a very different perspective on how various groups have been handling cyberbullying compared with those who have not faced this type of abuse. Some 53% of teens who have been cyberbullied say elected officials have done a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying, while 38% who have not undergone these experiences say the same (a 15 percentage point gap). Double-digit differences also appear between teens who have and have not been cyberbullied in their views on how law enforcement, social media sites and teachers have addressed online abuse, with teens who have been harassed or bullied online being more critical of each of these three groups. These harassed teens are also twice as likely as their peers who report no abuse to say parents have done a poor job of combatting online harassment and bullying.

Aside from these differences based on personal experience with cyberbullying, only a few differences are seen across major demographic groups. For example, Black teens express greater cynicism than White teens about how law enforcement has fared in this space: 33% of Black teens say law enforcement is doing a poor job when it comes to addressing online harassment and online bullying; 21% of White teens say the same. Hispanic teens (25%) do not differ from either group on this question.

Large majorities of teens believe permanent bans from social media and criminal charges can help reduce harassment on the platforms

Teens have varying views about possible actions that could help to curb the amount of online harassment youth encounter on social media.

While a majority of teens say each of five possible solutions asked about in the survey would at least help a little, certain measures are viewed as being more effective than others.

Teens see the most benefit in criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media or permanently locking these users out of their account. Half of teens say each of these options would help a lot in reducing the amount of harassment and bullying teens may face on social media sites.

About four-in-ten teens think that if social media companies looked for and deleted posts they think are bullying or harassing (42%) or if users of these platforms were required to use their real names and pictures (37%) it would help a lot in addressing these issues. The idea of forcing people to use their real name while online has long existed and been heavily debated: Proponents see it as a way to hold bad actors accountable and keep online conversations more civil , while detractors believe it would do little to solve harassment and could even  worsen it .

Three-in-ten teens say school districts monitoring students’ social media activity for bullying or harassment would help a lot. Some school districts already use digital monitoring software to help them identify worrying student behavior on school-owned devices , social media and other online platforms . However, these programs have been met with criticism regarding privacy issues , mixed results and whether they do more harm than good .

Having personally experienced online harassment is unrelated to a teen’s view on whether these potential measures would help a lot in reducing these types of adverse experiences on social media. Views do vary widely by a teen’s racial or ethnic background, however.

Black or Hispanic teens are consistently more optimistic than White teens about the effectiveness of each of these measures.

Majorities of both Black and Hispanic teens say permanently locking users out of their account if they bully or harass others or criminal charges for users who bully or harass on social media would help a lot, while about four-in-ten White teens express each view.

In the case of permanent bans, Black teens further stand out from their Hispanic peers: Seven-in-ten say this would help a lot, followed by 59% of Hispanic teens and 42% of White teens.

• It is important to note that there are various ways researchers measure youths’ experiences with cyberbullying and online harassment. As a result, there may be a range of estimates for how many teens report having these experiences. In addition, since the Center last polled on this topic in 2018, there have been changes in how the surveys were conducted and how the questions were asked. For instance, the 2018 survey asked about bullying by listing a number of possible behaviors and asking respondents to “check all that apply.” This survey asked teens to answer “yes” or “no” to each item individually. Due to these changes, direct comparisons cannot be made across the two surveys. ↩
• There were not enough Asian American teen respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis. As always, their responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout the report. ↩

Sign up for our Internet, Science and Tech newsletter

New findings, delivered monthly

Report Materials

Table of contents, connection, creativity and drama: teen life on social media in 2022, teens, social media and technology 2022, online harassment occurs most often on social media, but strikes in other places, too, about one-in-five americans who have been harassed online say it was because of their religion, some americans who have been targeted by troubling behaviors online wouldn’t call it ‘harassment’, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Case Study: Was That Harassment?

• J. Neil Bearden

A salesperson wonders how to respond to a colleague’s joke.

• JB J. Neil Bearden is an associate professor at INSEAD.

Partner Center

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Study UT Star Icon

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

In many ways, social media platforms have created great benefits for our societies by expanding and diversifying the ways people communicate with each other, and yet these platforms also have the power to cause harm. Posting hurtful messages about other people is a form of harassment known as cyberbullying. Some acts of cyberbullying may not only be considered slanderous, but also lead to serious consequences. In 2010, Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi jumped to his death a few days after his roommate used a webcam to observe and tweet about Tyler’s sexual encounter with another man. Jane Clementi, Tyler’s mother, stated:

“In this digital world, we need to teach our youngsters that their actions have consequences, that their words have real power to hurt or to help. They must be encouraged to choose to build people up and not tear them down.”

In 2013, Idalia Hernández Ramos, a middle school teacher in Mexico, was a victim of cyber harassment. After discovering that one of her students tweeted that the teacher was a “bitch” and a “whore,” Hernández confronted the girl during a lesson on social media etiquette. Inquiring why the girl would post such hurtful messages that could harm the teacher’s reputation, the student meekly replied that she was upset at the time. The teacher responded that she was very upset by the student’s actions. Demanding a public apology in front of the class, Hernández stated that she would not allow “young brats” to call her those names. Hernández uploaded a video of this confrontation online, attracting much attention.

While Hernández was subject to cyber harassment, some felt she went too far by confronting the student in the classroom and posting the video for the public to see, raising concerns over the privacy and rights of the student. Sameer Hinduja, who writes for the Cyberbullying Research Center, notes, “We do need to remain gracious and understanding towards teens when they demonstrate immaturity.” Confronting instances of a teenager venting her anger may infringe upon her basic rights to freedom of speech and expression. Yet, as Hinduja explains, teacher and student were both perpetrators and victims of cyber harassment. All the concerns of both parties must be considered and, as Hinduja wrote, “The worth of one’s dignity should not be on a sliding scale depending on how old you are.”

Discussion Questions

1. In trying to teach the student a lesson about taking responsibility for her actions, did the teacher go too far and become a bully? Why or why not? Does she deserve to be fired for her actions?

2. What punishment does the student deserve? Why?

3. Who is the victim in this case? The teacher or the student? Was one victimized more than the other? Explain.

4. Do victims have the right to defend themselves against bullies? What if they go through the proper channels to report bullying and it doesn’t stop?

5. How should compassion play a role in judging other’s actions?

6. How are factors like age and gender used to “excuse” unethical behavior? (ie. “Boys will be boys” or “She’s too young/old to understand that what she did is wrong”) Can you think of any other factors that are sometimes used to excuse unethical behavior?

7. How is cyberbullying similar or different from face-to-face bullying? Is one more harmful than the other? Explain.

8. Do you know anyone who has been the victim of cyber-bullying? What types of harm did this person experience? Why or why not? Does she deserve to be fired for her actions?

Related Videos

Causing Harm

Causing harm explores the types of harm that may be caused to people or groups and the potential reasons we may have for justifying these harms.

Bibliography

Teacher suspended after giving student a twitter lesson http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/12/world/americas/mexico-teacher-twitter/index.html

Pros and Cons of Social Media in the Classroom http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2012/01/19/Pros-and-Cons-of-Social-Media-in-the-Classroom.aspx?Page=1

How to Use Twitter in the Classroom http://thenextweb.com/twitter/2011/06/23/how-to-use-twitter-in-the-classroom/

Twitter is Turning Into a Cyberbullying Playground http://www.takepart.com/article/2012/08/08/twitter-turning-cyberbullying-playground

Can Social Media and School Policies be “Friends”? http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/policy-priorities/vol17/num04/Can-Social-Media-and-School-Policies-be-%C2%A3Friends%C2%A3%C2%A2.aspx

What Are the Free Expression Rights of Students In Public Schools Under the First Amendment? http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=12991

Teacher Shames Student in Classroom After Student Bullies Teacher on Twitter http://cyberbullying.us/teacher-shames-student-in-classroom-after-student-bullies-teacher-on-twitter/

Stay Informed

Support our work.

• Open access
• Published: 10 July 2023

Witnessing workplace bullying — protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual health and well-being outcomes

• Morten Birkeland Nielsen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7858-8623 1 , 2 ,
• Michael Rosander 3 &
• Ståle Valvatne Einarsen 2  

Systematic Reviews volume  12 , Article number:  119 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1783 Accesses

1 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

Most research on workplace bullying has examined the impact of the mistreatment on those exposed. Although bullying also is assumed to have significant ripple effects on bystanders, the empirical evidence for this line of research is highly fragmented and inconclusive. The overarching aim of this planned systematic review and meta-analysis is therefore to determine whether witnessing bullying of others at the workplace is associated with health problems and lower well-being among the observers. To achieve this aim, the review includes an assessment of which theoretical frameworks and methodological designs used in research so far and shed light on which confounders, mediators, and moderators that have been accounted for.

A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Electronic databases will be searched using pre-defined search terms to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies should report empirical findings on any individual outcome variable assessed among witnesses to workplace harassment and bullying or any overlapping concept. Primary observational studies with cross-sectional or prospective research design, case–control studies, and studies with experimental designs will be included. Qualitative interviews and case studies will be excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with a previously established checklist for studies on workplace bullying. The quality of evidence for an association between witnessing bullying and potential outcomes will be evaluated in accordance with the GRADE system. A random effects meta-analysis will be conducted with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.

We expect that findings on outcomes of bystanding to workplace bullying will provide practitioners with an understanding of the effects workplace bullying may have also on non-targets and the workplace as a whole. Such information is important regarding the development and implementation of effective measures and interventions against bullying. In addition, the review will increase our understanding of existing research gaps and enable us to make recommendations to address them. Our work aligns with the sustainable development agenda to protect workers and reduce inequalities at the workplace.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 342006.

Peer Review reports

Workplace bullying refers to a systematic form of harassment where an employee persistently and over a period of time is exposed to negative actions from others at the workplace (e.g. colleague, superiors, or subordinates) and where the employee finds it difficult to defend themself against these actions due to a perceived power imbalance between target and perpetrator [ 1 , 2 ]. In a workplace context, bullying mainly involves repeated exposure to verbal hostility, being made the laughing stock of the department, having one’s work situation obstructed or being given unreasonable tasks, or being socially excluded [ 3 ]. Our empirical knowledge and understanding of workplace bullying have grown extensively over the last three decades [ 4 ], and the evidence on prevalence rates, costs, antecedents, outcomes, and mechanisms has been summarized in multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses [ 2 ]. Taken together, this synthesized evidence shows that bullying is a frequent stressor with a global prevalence rate of about 15% [ 5 ], and that bullying is associated with a range of outcomes for those exposed, including mental health problems [ 6 , 7 ], somatic complaints [ 8 ], sleep problems [ 9 ], and suicidal ideation [ 10 ], as well as with reduced job satisfaction [ 11 ] and work ability [ 12 ].

Considering that the workplace is highly important regarding the financial situation and the personal identity and well-being of all employees, it is not surprising that being a target of prolonged harassment and social exclusion at work has severe and detrimental consequences for the health and well-being of those directly exposed. However, as bullying at the workplace occurs within a social context, the phenomenon has also been suggested to have negative ripple effects for others in the work environment and especially for bystanders, that is those who witnesses the bullying while not being directly targeted themselves [ 13 , 14 ]. Specifically, building on a “victim by proxy” hypothesis, it is assumed that observing the bullying of others can be perceived as threatening as it may indicate how other employees at the workplace can be treated. If one employee is treated badly, one may also risk similar negative treatment in the future as a bystander [ 15 ]. Building on the stressor-strain appraisal theory [ 16 ] and conservation of resources theory [ 17 ], Sprigg and colleagues [ 18 ] argued that “the effects of witnessing bullying on employees’ well-being emanate from a two-stage appraisal process in which employees appraise the situation or event they have witnessed and whether it poses a threat to them (primary appraisal), and then assess whether they are able to deal with what they have witnessed (secondary appraisal)”. They further highlighted the importance of moderators in this process by claiming that the availability of both personal and contextual resources is expected to therefore determine the magnitude of the outcomes associated with witnessing workplace bullying at the primary appraisal stage and their ability to cope at the secondary appraisal stage.

Despite these theoretical reasons for expecting that witnessing the bullying of others to be a risk factor for the health and well-being of the bystander, there are important knowledge gaps regarding bystanders to bullying [ 2 , 13 ]. Furthermore, while Niven and colleagues (2020) provided a thorough summary of research on bystanders in book chapter format, a full systematic literature review and meta-analysis has to this date not been conducted. To add to our knowledge about the potential impact of bullying on bystanders, this planned systematic review and meta-analytic study will therefore provide a synthesis of all available primary studies on individual health and well-being outcomes following witnessing bullying of others at the workplace. The overarching objective of the review will be to determine whether witnessing bullying of others at the workplace is associated with health problems and lower well-being among the observers . To achieve this main objective, it is crucial to know the nature and content of the existing research base, including the outcomes examined, the theoretical rationales, and methodological approaches. The review will therefore be guided by five research questions:

Which health and well-being outcomes that have been examined in research on bystanders so far (and thereby also answer which outcomes that have not been investigated)?

What is the magnitude of the associations between witnessing bullying and the health and well-being outcomes?

Which theoretical frameworks have been used to explain the impact of bystanding on outcomes?

What are the methodological designs that have been used in research on bystanders?

Which confounders, mediators, and moderators have been accounted for in research to this date?

Hence, we will, in a systematic manner, describe the nature of current research on bystanders of bullying and provide analyses of its strengths and limitations to date. In the meta-analytic part of the review, we will determine the magnitude of the association between observing workplace bullying as a bystander and outcomes.

This protocol has been written based on the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines and the MOOSE Guidelines for Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies [ 19 , 20 ]. A preliminary search of PROSPERO, MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL, the JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports , and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews did not reveal any currently ongoing or completed systematic reviews related to health and well-being outcomes among bystanders to workplace bullying.

Data sources search terms and search strategy

This literature review and meta-analysis will be based on systematic searches in the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis Online Journals, PsychINFO, and Wiley Online Library. Additional searches will be performed in Scopus and Google Scholar. All search terms are included in Table 1 . The systematic searches will be conducted by combining every possible combination of the three categories of keywords. In line with previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on workplace bullying [ 9 , 11 ], the searches will not be limited by historical time constraints. The systematic procedure substantiates that the literature search comprises all published studies on bystanders of workplace bullying. Consequently, no specific search terms of health and well-being outcome variables will be included as that is one of the outcomes of the planned review. Information about the outcomes of witnessing bullying will be extracted manually during the screening of studies. Through being general and wide, the search strategy is considered to reduce the risk of selection and detection bias.

A professional librarian will conduct the search. The primary investigator will oversee the search strategy. The search results will be exported to Covidence, a web-based screening and data extraction tool for authors conducting systematic reviews. After duplicates are removed, studies extracted from the literature search will be screened by two reviewers in order to determine eligible studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described below. Any differences in opinions will be resolved through discussion until a consensus is reached. A third reviewer may be consulted if necessary. This process ensures that bias is minimized when deciding whether to include or exclude a given study. The two reviewers will independently conduct the data extraction from each study using a pre-defined data extraction sheet. Following the description by Lipsey and Wilson [ 21 ], the coding form will assess information about witnessing bullying, outcomes, demographic characteristics of participants (age, gender, job type, employment status, educational level, etc.), study characteristics (country of origin, sample size, effect sizes, response rate, year study published, sampling method, measurement inventories etc.), and other relevant variables (health indicators, other exposures). Reference lists of included full-text articles will be manually inspected to detect any potentially eligible studies.

Primary outcome variables of interest

This review will be restricted to outcome variables related to health and well-being of bystanders to bullying at the individual level. According to Danna and Griffin [ 22 ], “Well-being is viewed as comprising the various life/non-work satisfactions enjoyed by individuals, work/job-related satisfactions, and general health. Health, in turn, is seen as being a sub-component of well-being and comprises the combination of such mental/psychological indicators as affect, frustration, and anxiety and such physical/physiological indicators as blood pressure, heart condition, and general physical health” (p. 359). Hence, this planned review on bystanding to bullying will include outcome variables related to mental health problems (e.g. anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion, burnout), somatic complaints (e.g. headache, stomachache, musculoskeletal complaints), sleep, sickness absence, life satisfaction, job satisfaction, turnover intent, and organizational commitment. Other related outcome variables may be added if identified through the review process.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Eligible studies should report empirical findings on any individual health and well-being outcome variable assessed among witnesses to workplace harassment or bullying (or any overlapping concept). Primary observational studies with cross-sectional or prospective research design, case–control studies, and studies with experimental designs will be included. Cross-sectional data will be used to determine the magnitude of the association between witnessing bullying and the assessed outcome variables, whereas prospective data will be used to determine directions of associations. As the strength of associations based on prospective data is likely to be a function of the utilized time-lag between measurement points [ 23 ], it is important to also include cross-sectional data [ 24 ]. Qualitative interview studies, single case studies, and series of single case studies will not be included in the review or meta-analysis.

For the meta-analytic part of the study, included studies are required to provide the zero-order associations between witnessing bullying and outcomes or provide sufficient information for these associations (effect sizes) to be calculated. Studies lacking this information or reported effect sizes that could not be transformed into correlations will be excluded from the meta-analysis. To avoid double-counting data, the sample in a given study should not have been used in a previous study of those included in the review. In cases with overlap, we will use data from the largest sample. The review will be limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals in English, German, French, or the Scandinavian languages (Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish). Hence, this will be a review of published peer review studies only. Accordingly, data based on conference abstracts, dissertations, and grey literature (e.g. reports) will not be included. As a first step, relevant articles will be considered based on their title and abstract. At the second step, full-text versions of selected papers will be examined and assessed regarding effect sizes and methodological quality.

Participants

The study population will be adults (18 years or older) with a current or previous employment in a full- or part-time position. No restrictions will be placed on participants’ gender, ethnicity, or other demographic characteristics. A minimum of two studies is considered sufficient to perform a meta-analysis [ 25 ].

Assessment of methodological quality (risk of bias)

As displayed in Table 2 , the methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with an adapted version of a previously established checklist for research on workplace bullying comprising 14 items related to sampling, representativeness, measurement issues, and confounders [ 9 , 12 ]. This checklist comprises selected and adapted items from the Risk-of-Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies [ 26 ] and the Quality Assessment Tool [ 27 ]. The quality of the reviewed studies will be scored on a scale from 0 (lowest possible quality) to 14 (highest possible quality). Kappa will be calculated to quantify the level of inter-rater agreement.

The quality of evidence for an association between witnessing bullying and outcomes will be evaluated in accordance with the GRADE system [ 28 ]. This system grades quality of evidence at four levels: high (4), moderate (3), low (2), and very low (1). For high evidence, the requirements are a randomized, doubled-blinded study design with no selection biases. For observational studies, moderate evidence, that is, exceptionally strong evidence from unbiased studies, is considered the strongest possible level of proof for an association.

Meta-analytic approach

The meta-analysis will be conducted with the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) software developed by Biostat [ 29 ]. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) will be reported as an overall synthesized measure of effect size. The mean of the combined effect sizes will be calculated in studies where several effect sizes were reported from the same sample (e.g. models with different control variables). An overall estimate will be calculated for studies with overlapping samples. In studies reporting effect sizes from independent subgroups (e.g. moderators), each subgroup will be included as a unique sample in the meta-analysis. Moderation analyses will also be used to compare associations from cross-sectional and prospective data. In contrast to some other meta-analytic methods, such as the Hunter and Schmidt approach [ 30 ], which weights studies by sample size, the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis programme weights studies by inverse variance. Inverse-variance weighting is a method of aggregating two or more random variables where each random variable is weighted in inverse proportion to its variance to minimize the variance of the weighted average. The inverse variance is roughly proportional to sample size, but is a more nuanced measure, and serves to minimize the variance of the combined effect [ 31 ].

As the individual studies included cannot be expected to come from the same population of studies, pooled mean effect size will be calculated using the random effects model. Such effects models are thus recommended when accumulating data from a series of studies where the effect size is assumed to vary from one study to the next and where it is unlikely that studies are functionally equivalent [ 31 ]. Random effect models allow statistical inferences to be made to a population of studies beyond those included in the meta-analysis [ 32 ]. The Q within statistic will be used to assess the heterogeneity of studies. A significant Q within value rejects the null hypothesis of homogeneity. A I 2 statistic will be computed as an indicator of heterogeneity in terms of percentages. Increasing values show increasing heterogeneity, with values of 0% indicating no heterogeneity, 50% indicating moderate heterogeneity, and 75% indicating high heterogeneity, respectively [ 33 ]. The “one-study-removed” procedure will be used as a sensitivity analysis to determine whether the overall estimates between witnessing bullying and potential outcomes are influenced by outlier studies. Using this approach, effect sizes that fall outside the 95th confidence interval of the average effect size will be considered as outliers. Four indicators of publication bias are to be examined: funnel plot, Rosenthal’s fail-safe N, Duval and Tweedie’s trim and fill procedure and Egger’s regression intercept [ 34 ].

The inclusion of a meta-analysis in this review will depend on two requirements:

First, whether we can identify enough primary studies that report effect sizes on the same outcomes. It has previously been proposed that a quantitative synthesis needs at least two studies [ 35 ], but more studies are likely to provide more unbiased results.

Second, whether the outcomes are sufficiently similar to warrant their combination into an overall result. If studies are too heterogenous or based on many different tools and measures, it may not be possible to perform a meta-analysis.

This planned review and meta-analysis will systematically explore the evidence available on health and well-being outcomes of being a witness to workplace bullying. By gathering and summarizing information about magnitude of effect sizes, theoretical models employed, methodological designs prevailing the field, and the mediating and moderating factors studied in relation to how witnessing bullying of others influence bystanders, the findings from this study will provide directions for future research and provide practitioners with an understanding of the effects workplace bullying may have also on non-targets and the workplace as a whole. This knowledge can then be used to develop stronger countermeasures and interventions.

Limitations

As data will be extracted using full-text articles only, and excluding data from grey literature, this review will build on published studies and doctoral dissertations exclusively, whereas unpublished studies and non-peer-reviewed literature (e.g. reports) are to be excluded. Although it has been suggested that researchers should aim at including unpublished literature in meta-analyses and systematic reviews, the inclusion of data from unpublished studies can itself introduce bias [ 36 ]. First, the unpublished studies that can be located are likely to be an unrepresentative sample of all unpublished studies. For instance, the identification of unpublished studies may depend on the willingness of investigators of unpublished studies to provide data. This may again depend upon the findings of the study, with more favourable results being provided more readily shared [ 36 ]. Secondly, unpublished studies may be of lower methodological quality than published studies. In a study of 60 meta-analyses that included published and unpublished studies, it was found that unpublished studies were less likely to conceal intervention allocation adequately and to blind outcome assessments [ 37 ]. As the planned review will be based on a comprehensive literature search of studies published in peer-reviewed journals, the included studies should be representative for the published literature on bystanders to workplace bullying. In addition, the peer review process should, at least in theory, ensure some degree of scientific quality of the included studies. The robustness of the findings will also be indicated by publication bias analyses. However, even though the papers are published in peer-reviewed journals, there is a potential risk of bias in the peer review process that allows lower quality studies to be published. For this reason, quality assessment of each study will be performed, and the robustness of the review will be further provided by this assessment.

It is likely that most associations reported in primary studies will be based on self-report data based on from self-administered questionnaires. This kind of data is prone to be influenced by common method bias as well as response set bias such as expectations, previous experiences, or health status. This may cause both non-differential and differential misclassification, resulting in under- and overestimations of effects [ 38 ]. The meta-analysis will include studies with cross-sectional designs, and the aggregated effect sizes from these studies will therefore not allow for conclusions about cause-and-effect relationship between the included variables. However, cross-sectional studies can be an important starting point for establishing connections among variables that can serve as the basis for further understanding and theorizing [ 24 ]. In the context of bystanding to workplace bullying, cross-sectional findings represent the first step in figuring out whether witnessing bullying of others might be a cause of health problems and low well-being. In addition, to add to the understanding of causal relations, separate analyses will be conducted for studies based on time-lagged data to determine direction of associations over time in the planned review.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis as only a secondary analysis of data already available in scientific databases will be conducted. The results of this review will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication and will be presented at relevant conferences.

Review status

This review is expected to be complete by August, 2023.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Theory, Research, and Practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 3–53.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Nielsen MB, Einarsen SV. What we know, what we do not know, and what we should and could have known about workplace bullying: an overview of the literature and agenda for future research. Aggress Violent Beh. 2018;42:71–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work: the European tradition. In: Einarsen S, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Developments in theory, research, and practice. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2011. p. 3–40.

Google Scholar  

Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL. The concept of bullying and harassment at work. The European tradition. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace Theory, research and practice. Third. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 3–54.

Nielsen MB, Matthiesen SB, Einarsen S. The impact of methodological moderators on prevalence rates of workplace bullying. A meta-analysis. J Occupat Organ Psychol. 2010;83(4):955–79.

Verkuil B, Atasayi S, Molendijk ML. Workplace bullying and mental health: a meta-analysis on cross-sectional and longitudinal data. Plos One. 2015;10(8):e0135225. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135225 .

Boudrias V, Trepanier S-G, Salin D, Id, Trepanier S-GOhoo, Salin DOhoo. A systematic review of research on the longitudinal consequences of workplace bullying and the mechanisms involved. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2021;56(101508):17.

Nielsen MB, Magerøy N, Gjerstad J, Einarsen S. Workplace bullying and subsequent health problems. Tidsskrift for den Norske legeforening. J Norwegian Med Assoc. 2014;134(12/13):1233–8.

Nielsen MB, Harris A, Pallesen S, Einarsen SV. Workplace bullying and sleep - a systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Sleep Med Rev. 2020;51:101289.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Leach LS, Poyser C, Butterworth P. Workplace bullying and the association with suicidal ideation/thoughts and behaviour: a systematic review. Occup Environ Med. 2017;74(1):72–9.

Nielsen MB, Einarsen S. Outcomes of workplace bullying: a meta-analytic review. Work Stress. 2012;26(4):309–32.

Nielsen MB, Indregard AM, Øverland S. Workplace bullying and sickness absence – a systematic review and meta-analysis of the research literature. Scandinavian J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(5):359–70.

Pouwelse M, Mulder R, Mikkelsen EG. The role of bystanders in workplace bullying: an overview of theories and empirical research. In: D'Cruz P, Noronha E, Baillien E, Catley B, Harlos K, Hogh A, et al., editors. Pathways of job-related negative behaviour. Handbooks of Workplace Bullying, Emotional Abuse and Harassment. 2018. p. 1-39.

Ng K, Niven K, Hoel H. ‘I could help, but . . .’: a dynamic sensemaking model of workplace bullying bystanders. Human Relations. 2019;Online first:1–29.

Niven K, Ng K, Hoel H. The bystanders of workplace bullying. In: Einarsen SV, Hoel H, Zapf D, Cooper CL, editors. Bullying and harassment in the workplace, Theory, research and practice. 3rd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2020. p. 385–408.

Lazarus RS. Coping theory and research - past, present, and future. Psychosom Med. 1993;55(3):234–47.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):513–24.

Sprigg CA, Niven K, Dawson J, Farley S, Armitage CJ. Witnessing workplace bullying and employee well-being: a two-wave field study. J Occup Health Psychol. 2019;24(2):286–96.

Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage; 2001.

Danna K, Griffin RW. Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Manage. 1999;25(3):357–84.

Ford MT, Matthews RA, Wooldridge JD, Mishra V, Kakar UM, Strahan SR. How do occupational stressor-strain effects vary with time? A review and meta-analysis of the relevance of time lags in longitudinal studies. Work Stress. 2014;28(1):9–30.

Spector PE. Do Not Cross Me: optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. J Bus Psychol. 2019;34(2):125–37.

Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR. How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. J Educ Behav Statist. 2010;35(2):215–47.

Kim SY, Park JE, Lee YJ, Seo HJ, Sheen SS, Hahn S, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(4):408–14.

National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins JPT, Rothstein H. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2. Englewood: NJ Biostat; 2005.

Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage; 2004.

Borenstein M, Hedges L, Rothstein H. Meta-analysis Fixed effects vs. random effects. Englewood: NJ Biostat; 2007.

Berkeljon A, Baldwin SA. An introduction to meta-analysis for psychotherapy outcome research. Psychother Res. 2009;19(4–5):511–8.

Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley; 2009.

Book   Google Scholar  

Valentine JC, Pigott TD, Rothstein HR, Id, Rothstein HROhoo. How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics. 2010;35(2):215–47.

Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org : The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.

Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1–76.

Rugulies R. Studying the effect of the psychosocial work environment on risk of ill-health: towards a more comprehensive assessment of working conditions. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38(3):187–91.

Download references

Open access funding provided by University of Bergen. There is no funding for this project.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Institute of Occupational Health, PB 5330 Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway

Morten Birkeland Nielsen

Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Postboks 7807, 5020, Bergen, Norway

Morten Birkeland Nielsen & Ståle Valvatne Einarsen

Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden

Michael Rosander

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MBN was the initiator of the project and has been responsible for the writing of the protocol. MR and SE contributed to the idea development and the development of the project. All authors have read and approved the protocol. MBN is the guarantor of the review.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Morten Birkeland Nielsen or Ståle Valvatne Einarsen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval and informed consent are not required for this systematic review and meta-analysis as only a secondary analysis of data already available in scientific databases will be conducted.

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.

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.

Nielsen, M.B., Rosander, M. & Einarsen, S.V. Witnessing workplace bullying — protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual health and well-being outcomes. Syst Rev 12 , 119 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02288-0

Download citation

Received : 28 June 2022

Accepted : 03 July 2023

Published : 10 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02288-0

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

• Literature review

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Jennifer Kramer
• Brandon Ruiz
• Shoshee Hui
• Dat T. Phan
• Courtney Luengo
• Veronica Gomez
• Employment Law
• Sexual Harassment
• Age Discrimination
• Disability & ADA Compliance
• Gender Discrimination
• Pregnancy & FMLA
• Race & National Origin
• Religious Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation & Gender Identification
• Wrongful Termination
• Retaliation
• Contract Workers Rights
• Minimum Wage
• Salary Hourly Classification
• Wage & Hour Class Action
• Civil Right Federal Subsection 1983
• Qui Tam Government Contract Fraud
• Pharmaceutical Sales
• Refuser Cases
• Privacy Rights
• Claims By Public Entity Employees
• Los Angeles
• San Bernardino
• In The News
• Case Results

True Stories of Workplace Bullying: Case Examples to Help You Understand Your Rights

Do you think you’re being bullied at work? If so, your workplace bully could be violating California and Federal law due to their harassing behaviors. While bullying itself is not unlawful, there are anti-bullying legislative measures being brought to the forefront all across the country, including the Healthy Workplace Bill. In addition to anti-bullying legislation, the Workplace Bullying Institute is also striving to eradicate bullying on the job by dedicating their efforts to anti-bullying education, research, and consulting for individuals, professionals, employers, and organizations.

Workplace bullying comes in many forms and can be unlawful if this type of harassment is based on an employee’s national origin, age, gender, disability, or other protected characteristics. Bullies also typically engage in these unlawful behaviors more than once rather than in isolated incidents.

In the spirit of the Workplace Bullying Institute’s Freedom from Workplace Bullies Week, we’ve decided to offer some insight into real workplace bullying, retaliation and discrimination cases from around the country that can help you understand your own rights when it comes to employment harassment.

Real Workplace Bullying Case Examples

Microsoft to pay $2 million in workplace bullying case.

AUSTIN, TX –  After seven years, Michael Mercieca finally saw the courts order Microsoft to pay for workplace bullying that almost led him to the breaking point.

The Texas employment labor law case judge, Tim Sulak, found Microsoft guilty of “acting with malice and reckless indifference” in an organized program of office retaliation against Mercieca.

“They (Microsoft Corporation) remain guilty today, tomorrow and in perpetuity over egregious acts against me and racist comments by their executive that led to the retaliation and vendetta resulting in my firing,” said Mercieca.

Previously, a jury, by unanimous agreement, found that Microsoft knowingly created a hostile work environment that led to Mercieca’s constructive dismissal. Mercieca was a highly regarded member of the tech giant’s sales department and had an unblemished record, but found himself trapped in a workplace conspiracy where his supervisors and coworkers undermined his work, falsely accused him of sexual harassment, and expense account fraud, marginalized him, and blocked his promotions. These harassing behaviors began when Mercieca ended a relationship with a woman who then went on to become his boss. Human relations at Microsoft did nothing to stop the bullying, either.

“Rather than do the right thing, the management team went after Michael by getting a female employee to file a sexual harassment complaint and a complaint of retaliation against him,” says Paul T. Morin. “Microsoft could have taken Mercieca’s charges seriously and disciplined the senior manager but instead it engaged in the worst kind of corporate bullying.”

Read the full story

King Soopers to Pay $80,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

DENVER, CO –  Dillon Companies, Inc., owners of the King Soopers supermarket chain in Colorado will pay $80,000 for bullying a learning-disabled employee who worked at its Lakewood, Colorado store.

According to the EEOC’s disability discrimination lawsuit, two store supervisors repeatedly subjected Justin Stringer, an employee who worked at King Soopers for a decade, to repeated bullying and taunting in the workplace because of his learning disability. The EEOC alleged that the bullying resulted in Stringer’s termination.

“Employees with disabilities must be treated with the same dignity and respect as all other members of the work force,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Mary Jo O’Neill. “The EEOC will continue to enforce the ADA to protect the rights of disabled employees and applicants.”

DHL Global Forwarding Pays $201,000 to Settle EEOC National Origin Discrimination Suit

DALLAS, TX –  Air Express International, USA, Inc. and Danzas Corporation, doing business as DHL Global Forwarding, will pay $201,000 to nine employees and provide other significant relief to settle a national origin hostile environment lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC charged DHL Global with subjecting a class of Hispanic employees to bullying, discrimination, and harassment due to their national origin. According to the suit, Hispanic employees at DHL’s Dallas warehouse were bullied at work by being subjected to taunts and derogatory names such as “wetback,” “beaner,” “stupid Mexican” and “Puerto Rican b-h”. The Hispanic workers, who included persons of Mexican, Salvadoran and Puerto Rican heritage, were often ridiculed by DHL personnel with demeaning slurs which included referring to the Salvadoran worker as a “salvatrucha,” a term referring to a gangster. Other workers were identified with other derogatory stereotypes.

Robert A. Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, stated, “Bullying Hispanic workers for speaking a language other than English is a distinct form of discrimination, which, when coupled with ethnic slurs, is clearly motivated by prejudice and national origin animus. Sometimes job discrimination isn’t just about hiring, firing or promotion; it’s about an employer promoting disharmony and disrespect through an unhealthy work environment.”

Wal-Mart to Pay $150,000 to Settle EEOC Age and Disability Discrimination Suit

DALLAS, TX –  Wal-Mart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. (Wal-Mart) has agreed to pay $150,000 and provide other significant relief to settle an age and disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC charged in its suit that Wal-Mart discriminated against the manager of the Keller, Texas Walmart store by subjecting him to bullying, harassment, discriminatory treatment, and discharge because of his age.

According to the EEOC, David Moorman was ridiculed with frequent bullying and taunts at work from his direct supervisor, including being called “old man” and “old food guy.” The EEOC also alleged that Wal-Mart fired Moorman because of his age.

“Mr. Moorman was subjected to taunts and bullying from his supervisor that made his working conditions intolerable,” said EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark. “The EEOC remains committed to prosecuting the rights of workers through litigation in federal court.”

Under the terms of the two-year consent decree settling the case, Wal-Mart will pay $150,000 in relief to Moorman under the terms of the two-year consent decree. Wal-Mart also agreed to provide training for employees on the ADA and the ADEA, which will include an instruction on the kind of conduct that could constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment.

Everyone deserves to work in a safe, supportive environment and workplace bullies should be dealt with accordingly. If you are being bullied at work, contact our expert California employment lawyers today for your free consultation.

Recent Posts

Schedule a free case evaluation.

Fields Marked With An * Are Required

" * " indicates required fields

more than 25 years of experience

Trusted counsel when you need it most.

• Practice Areas

Local Office

3600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1908 Los Angeles, CA 90010

Copyright © 2024 Hennig Kramer Ruiz & Singh, LLP . All rights reserved.

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
• Campbell Syst Rev
• v.17(2); 2021 Jun

Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis

Hannah gaffney.

1 Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge UK

Maria M. Ttofi

David p. farrington, executive summary/abstract.

Bullying first emerged as an important topic of research in the 1980s in Norway (Olweus), and a recent meta‐analysis shows that these forms of aggression remain prevalent among young people globally (Modecki et al.). Prominent researchers in the field have defined bullying as any aggressive behavior that incorporates three key elements, namely: (1) an intention to harm, (2) repetitive in nature, and (3) a clear power imbalance between perpetrator and victim (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Farrington). There are many negative outcomes associated with bullying perpetration, such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), weapon carrying (Valdebenito et al.), drug use (Ttofi et al.), and violence and offending in later life (Ttofi et al.). Bullying victimization too is associated with negative outcomes such as: suicidal ideation (Holt et al.), anxiety, low self‐esteem and loneliness (Hawker& Boulton). Therefore, school bullying is an important target for effective intervention, and should be considered a matter of public health concern.

The objective of this review is to establish whether or not existing school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing school‐bullyng behaviors. This report also updates a previous meta‐analysis conducted by Farrington and Ttofi. This earlier review found that antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and victimization and a primary objective of the current report is to update the earlier analysis of 53 evaluations by conducting new searches for evaluations conducted and published since 2009.

Search Methods

Systematic searches were conducted using Boolean combinations of the following keywords: bully*; victim*; bully‐victim; school; intervention; prevention; program*; evaluation; effect*; and anti‐bullying . Searches were conducted on several online databases including, Web of Science, PscyhINFO, EMBASE, EMBASE, DARE, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Databases of unpublished reports, such as masters' and doctoral theses (e.g., Proquest) were also searched.

Selection Criteria

Results from systematic searches were screened thoroughly against the following inclusion criteria. To be included in this review, a study must have: (1) described an evaluation of a school‐based antibullying program implemented with school‐age participants; (2) utilized an operational definition of school‐bullying that coincides with existing definitions; (3) measured school‐bullying perpetration and/or victimization using quantitative measures, such as, self‐, peer‐, or teacher‐report questionnaires; and (4) used an experimental or quasi‐experimental design, with one group receiving the intervention and another not receiving the intervention.

Data Collection and Analysis

Of the 19,877 search results, 474 were retained for further screening. The majority of these were excluded, and after multiple waves of screening, 100 evaluations were included in our meta‐analysis. A total of 103 independent effect sizes were estimated and each effect size was corrected for the impact of including clusters in evaluation designs. Included evaluations were conducted using both randomized ( n  = 45; i.e., randomized controlled trials/RCTs) and nonrandomized ( n  = 44; i.e., quasi‐experimental designs with before/after measures; BA/EC) methodologies. All of these studies included measures of bullying outcomes before and after implementation of an intervention. The remaining 14 effect sizes were estimated from evaluations that used age cohort designs. Two models of meta‐analysis are used to report results in our report. All mean effects computed are presented using both the multivariance adjustment model (MVA) and random effects model (RE). The MVA model assigns weights to primary studies in direct proportion to study level sampling error as with the fixed effects model but adjusts the meta‐analytic standard error and confidence intervals for study heterogeneity. The RE model incorporates between‐study heterogeneity into the formula for assigning weights to primary studies. The differences and strengths/limitations of both approaches are discussed in the context of the present data.

Our meta‐analysis identified that bullying programs significantly reduce bullying perpetration (RE: odds ratio [OR] = 1.309; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.24–1.38; z  = 9.88; p  < .001) and bullying victimization (RE: OR = 1.244; 95% CI: 1.19–1.31; z  = 8.92; p  < .001), under a random effects model of meta‐analysis. Mean effects were similar across both models of meta‐analysis for bullying perpetration (i.e., MVA: OR = 1,324; 95% CI: 1.27–1.38; z  = 13.4; p  < .001) and bullying victimization (i.e., MVA: OR = 1.248; 95% CI: 1.21–1.29; z  = 12.06; p  < .001). Under both computational models, primary studies were more effective in reducing bullying perpetration than victimization overall. Effect sizes varied across studies, with significant heterogeneity between studies for both bullying perpetration ( Q  = 323.392; df  = 85; p  < .001; I 2  = 73.716) and bullying victimization ( Q  = 387.255; df  = 87; p  < .001; I 2  = 77.534) outcomes. Analyses suggest that publication bias is unlikely. Between‐study heterogeneity was expected, given the large number of studies included, and thus, the number of different programs, methods, measures and samples used.

Authors' Conclusions

We conclude that overall, school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration and bullying victimization, although effect sizes are modest. The impact of evaluation methodology on effect size appears to be weak and does not adequately explain the significant heterogeneity between primary studies. Moreover, the issue of the under‐/over‐estimation of the true treatment effect by different experimental designs and use of self‐reported measures is reviewed. The potential explanations for this are discussed, along with recommendations for future primary evaluations. Avenues for future research are discussed, including the need further explain differences across programs by correlating individual effect sizes with varying program components and varying methodological elements available across these 100 evaluations. Initial findings in the variability of effect sizes across different methodological moderators provide some understanding on the issue of heterogeneity, but future analyses based on further moderator variables are needed.

1. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

1.1. interventions to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimization are effective.

Bullying is a ubiquitous form of aggression in schools worldwide. Intervention and prevention programs targeting school bullying perpetration and victimization are effective, yet more research is needed to understand variability in effectiveness.

The main findings of our review are that bullying programs were effective in reducing bullying perpetration outcomes by roughly 18–19% and bullying victimization by roughly 15–16%. There are substantial variations in effects, and the reasons for these variations require further research.

1.2. What is this review about?

Bullying is defined as aggressive behaviors that occur repeatedly over time between two or more individuals. Typically, there is a clear power imbalance between victims and bullies, either socially or physically. Furthermore, bullying behaviors are those that are committed intentionally to harm the victim.

What is the aim of this review?

The aim of this review is to summarise findings from studies of the effectiveness of school‐based antibullying programs in reducing both bullying perpetration and victimization will be reported. The review summarizes 100 studies, with the largest number being from the United States.

1.3. What studies are included?

To be included in this review, primary studies must have evaluated a specific intervention program that targeted bullying perpetration and/or victimization outcomes in school‐aged children, that is, typically between four and 18 years old. Studies must have used two experimental groups of children, one that received the intervention, and one that did not, and applied quantitative measures of bullying behavior (perpetration and/or victimization) that coincided with our operational definition of bullying.

Our final meta‐analytic review includes 100 studies of the effectiveness of antibullying programs. The largest number of studies came from the United States, with most other studies from Canada and Europe.

1.4. What are the findings of this review?

Antibullying programs are effective in reducing bullying perpetration outcomes by roughly 18–19% and bullying victimization by roughly 15–16%.

Variability in the effectiveness of antibullying programs was associated with differences in methodological designs, types of programs and geographical regions. Interventions evaluated using age cohort designs collectively gave the largest overall effect for both bullying perpetration and bullying victimization.

Limitations of the results are similar to those of previous reviews; for example, the reliance of self‐reported measurements of bullying may suggest the change is in reports of bullying perpetration/victimization and not behavioral change.

1.5. What do the findings of this review mean?

The findings indicate that school‐based bullying intervention and prevention programs can be effective in reducing both bullying perpetration and victimization, although the effect is, overall, modest.

The effectiveness of antibullying programs is an important finding with implications for public health and educational policy. However, our review did identify that there are variations in the effectiveness of intervention programs. Future research is needed to explore the reasons for these variations.

1.6. How up‐to‐date is this review?

This report forms an update of an earlier review (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ). The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2016.

2. BACKGROUND

Bullying first emerged as an important topic of research in the 1980s, following the tragic suicides of young boys in Norway, the reason for which was attributed to bullying victimization (Olweus,  1993 ). Today, this form of aggressive behavior remains a prevalent problem among young people globally. For example, a recent meta‐analysis of 80 international studies discovered prevalence levels of 34.5% and 36% for bullying perpetration and bullying victimization respectively (Modecki et al.,  2014 ).

Notably, bullying is a matter of public health, impacting the life outcomes of both bullies and victims, in varying ways (Arseneault et al.,  2010 ; Masiello & Schroeder,  2014 ; Ttofi et al.,  2012 ). Given its long‐term effects, it is imperative that effective intervention efforts are put in place in order to alleviate this troubling school phenomenon (Ttofi,  2015 ).

2.1. Defining school bullying

In order to adequately determine which interventions will effectively reduce bullying behaviors, it is important that researchers and educators start by accurately assessing the prevalence of involvement in school bullying (Swearer et al.,  2010 ). There remains some degree of disagreement in relation to definitive cut‐off points for involvement in bullying (Solberg & Olweus,  2003 ; Swearer et al.,  2010 ) and methods utilized for the assessment of bullying (Smith et al.,  2002 ; Swearer et al.,  2010 ). However, there is better agreement in regard to the defining criteria for school bullying.

Prominent researchers in the field have defined bullying as any aggressive behavior that incorporates three core elements, namely: (1) an intention to harm, (2) repetitive in nature, and (3) a clear power imbalance between perpetration and victim (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,  2014 ; Farrington,  1993 ; Olweus,  1993 ). In other words, bullies are individuals who intend to cause harm to their victims through their actions, over a long period of time. Furthermore, victims of bullying are typically less powerful than bullies, or groups of bullies, and feel that they cannot easily defend themselves. This may be due to a physical or social power imbalance.

There are many forms of bullying, for example, school‐bullying, workplace bullying, sibling bullying and, most recently, cyberbullying. The present review is concerned only with face‐to‐face school‐bullying, namely, bullying that occurs in schools between individuals, usually aged between 4 and 18 years old. In the school context, bullying is a complex social phenomenon, that often does not happen between the bully and victim in isolation (Salmivalli,  2010 ). For example, individuals can be involved in bullying, not only as bullies, victims, or bully‐victims, but also as bystanders, defenders, or reinforcers (Zych et al.,  2017 ).

Cyberbullying is another form of aggressive behaviors that may occur within a school community, and previous research has found a significant overlap between offline (i.e., school‐bullying or face‐to‐face bullying) and online bullying (Baldry et al.,  2017 ). There is currently very little information about the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to reduce cyberbullying or whether school‐based programs that also target face‐to‐face bullying can impact online bullying concurrently.

2.2. The importance of addressing school bullying

School‐bullying is a strong risk marker for several negative behavioral, health, social, and/or emotional problems. A recent comprehensive review of systematic reviews highlighted that the impact of school‐bullying can occur concurrently with perpetration and/or victimization, but also later in life (Zych et al.,  2015 ). Previous studies have found that bullying victimization is often followed by negative mental health outcomes such as: increased suicidal ideation (e.g., Holt et al.,  2015 ); generalized or social anxiety, low self‐esteem and loneliness (e.g., Hawker & Boulton,  2000 ); psychotic symptoms (e.g., van Dam et al.,  2012 ); depression (e.g., Ttofi et al.,  2011a ,  2011b ); sleeping problems (Geel et al.,  2016 ); and other psychosomatic symptoms (Gini & Pozzoli,  2013 ).

Bullying perpetration, on the other hand, has been linked to several negative outcomes such as: suicidal ideation and suicidal attempts (Holt et al.,  2015 ); weapon carrying (Valdebenito et al.,  2018 ); drug use (Ttofi et al.,  2016 ); and violence and offending in later life (Ttofi et al.,  2011b ,  2012 ). Although involvement in school bullying is not necessarily a causal factor for undesirable life outcomes, research has found that there is an apparent association. It may be the case that the experience of school bullying functions as a stepping stone toward undesirable life outcomes (Arseneault et al.,  2010 ).

Moreover, involvement in school bullying, as either a bully or a victim, has been found to correlate with factors such as low academic achievement (Strøm et al.,  2013 ), truancy from school (Gastic,  2008 ), and drug use (Valdebenito et al.,  2015 ). Such factors are common risk factors for youth offending and delinquency (Farrington & Welsh,  2008 ). Therefore, a bullying prevention program could serve as a crime prevention program, as well as a form of promoting public health.

3. OBJECTIVES

It is clear that school bullying is an important target for effective intervention and prevention. Bullying is an ethical problem as well as a developmental one: targeting school bullying facilitates the process of optimal psychological development but it also addresses the question of human rights, especially the rights of the child (Sercombe & Donnelly,  2013 ). The aim of this paper is to provide an up‐to‐date systematic and meta‐analytical exploration of the effectiveness of school‐based antibullying programs. As such, the present report updates an earlier systematic and meta‐analytic review (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ), by including evidence from an earlier report, and all available evaluations of antibullying programs since 2009.

It is hoped that this new evidence base will assist policy‐makers and practitioners working in the field of bullying prevention. Farrington and Ttofi's ( 2009 ) review concluded that school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing both bullying perpetration (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.26–1.47; z  = 7.86; p  < .0001) and bullying victimization (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.18–1.42; z  = 5.61; p  < .0001). Their review had a major impact on the field of bullying intervention and prevention, and in the 9 years that have passed since its publication there has been a wealth of new research.

Therefore, the aim of the present report is to conduct systematic searches for new evaluations of antibullying programs, and also update earlier analysis by including their 53 evaluations.

The initial stage of any meta‐analysis involves conducting a thorough and systematic search of all the existing and relevant literature (Lipsey & Wilson,  2001 ; Littell et al.,  2008 ). Using predetermined keywords and strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, a systematic review aims to identify, screen, appraise, and synthesize all relevant empirical studies (Zych et al.,  2017 ). In this way, systematic bias is avoided.

4.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

To be included in the present systematic review, a set of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were employed to guide searches. These criteria were identical to those used in the previous meta‐analysis (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ). Specifically, to be included, primary studies must:

• (1) Describe an evaluation of a school‐based antibullying program implemented with school‐age participants (depending on the site of evaluation, ages may vary between 4 and 18 years of age);
• (2) Utilize an operational definition of school‐bullying that coincides with existing definitions (e.g., CDC,  2014 ; Farrington,  1993 ; Olweus,  1993 );
• (3) Measure school‐bullying perpetration and/or victimization using quantitative measures, such as, self‐, peer‐, or teacher‐report questionnaires; and
• (4) Use an experimental or quasi‐experimental design, with one group receiving the intervention and another (control group) not receiving the intervention. Nonrandomized studies had to measure outcomes before and after the intervention.

As a result, the present systematic review excludes studies that evaluate the effectiveness of intervention programs targeting alternative forms of bullying, such as cyber‐bullying (e.g., Del Rey et al.,  2015 ), general aggression (e.g., Leff et al.,  2010 ), and school violence (e.g., Giesbrecht et al.,  2011 ). Other studies were excluded because they measured bullying‐related nonbehavioral outcomes, for example, “attitudes towards bullying” (e.g., Earhart,  2011 ), or coping strategies for dealing with victimization (e.g., Watson et al.,  2010 ).

In addition, studies conducted with special needs, delinquent, or psychiatric populations were excluded (e.g., Espelage et al.,  2015 ), so that results could be generalizable to the wider mainstream school population. Studies using qualitative measures of effectiveness, such as participant perceptions of the effectiveness of the program (e.g., Fletcher et al.,  2015 ), were also excluded.

4.2. Searches 1

In order to identify potentially includable studies, Boolean searches were conducted using multiple combinations of the following keywords: bully*; victim*; bully‐victim; school; intervention; prevention; program*; evaluation; effect*; and anti‐bullying . A full description of the syntax used is provided in Appendix A.

Searches were conducted on several online databases, including, but not limited to: Web of Science, 2 PsychINFO, EMBASE, DARE, ERIC, and Scopus. Google scholar ( www.scholar.google.co.uk ) was also searched. A full list of databases searched is provided in Table  1 . EBSCOhost was used as a platform to search multiple databases concurrently and such databases are indicated in Table  1 .

Online platforms and databases manually searched

Note: EBSCOhost was used as a platform to search multiple databases concurrently. Such databases are marked with an *.

Databases of unpublished reports (e.g., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Solutions) were also searched to include gray literature in our review. This should help to minimize potential publication bias linked to larger or significant effect sizes (Easterbrook et al.,  1991 ; McAuley et al.,  2000 ). In addition, evaluation studies included by previous systematic reviews were scanned, based on the name of each program, for additional‐updated evaluation results (i.e., Cantone et al.,  2015 ; Chalamandaris & Piette,  2015 ; Evans et al.,  2014 ; Jiménez‐Barbero et al.,  2012 ,  2016 ).

Studies included in the previous review (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ), were also included in the present systematic review. Searches for the present review were conducted up to the end of December 2016, 3 for empirical studies published during and since 2009.

4.3. Screening

Our searches of the literature produced approximately 19,877 reports that were screened for eligibility. Based on the title and abstract, a total of 474 primary studies were identified as relevant, were obtained and subjected to further screening. Studies were allocated to six categories based on their relevance to the current meta‐analysis. A description of each category is provided in Table  2 . Screening was undertaken by the first author (H. G.), under the supervision of the second author (M. T.), in a collaborative format. H. G. reviewed eligible studies, and any queries were settled in discussion with M. T.

Relevance scale categories used in screening

The initial wave of screening excluded 258 of these primary studies. At this stage, studies were excluded because they: (1) did not evaluate a specific antibullying program (Category 1; n  = 107); (2) reviewed several different antibullying programs (Category 2; n  = 108); or (3) did not report empirical quantitative data from an evaluation of a specific antibullying program (Category 3; n  = 43).

A second wave of screening excluded a further 133 studies (Category 4; see Table  3 ). Primary studies were excluded at this stage because they: (1) reported irrelevant outcomes; (2) did not have an adequate control group; or (3) did not meet specified methodological criteria. The screening process is described in detail in Figure  1 . In total, 83 studies published since 2009 were included in our updated systematic review (Category 5).

Descriptions of category four studies

Screening of studies

In addition, five studies were identified during searches conducted for a meta‐analytical review of cyberbullying prevention programs (Gaffney et al.,  2018 ). These studies were missed during systematic searches for the current review (i.e., Kaljee et al.,  2017 ; Ortega‐Ruiz et al.,  2012 ; Ostrov et al.,  2015 ; Silva et al.,  2016 ; Solomontos‐Kountouri et al.,  2016 ). One of these studies (i.e., Kaljee et al.,  2017 ) has a publication date outside of the range of our searches. However, it was included because it was available online in 2016.

To provide the most up‐to‐date analysis of school‐based bullying prevention and intervention programs, therefore, a total of 88 newly identified studies are included in the present systematic review.

5. DATA EXTRACTION

After identifying studies eligible for inclusion in the present systematic and meta‐analytical review detailed information about the antibullying programs, sample involved, and evaluation design were extracted from primary studies. The following chapter outlines the coding framework applied in greater detail.

Table  4 also outlines each piece of information extracted. Information was extracted from primary studies under four main headings: (1) Descriptives, (2) Design, (3) Program, and (4) Outcomes. Additionally, the following section outlines information extracted from primary studies in order to create a risk of bias index. Table  5 outlines the items utilized to assess risk of bias for each of the methodological designs included in the present report. Details of the risk of bias results for each study is provided in Appendix B.

Coding framework

Abbreviations: BA/EC, quasi‐experiments with before and after measures of bullying (nonrandomized); exp, experimental group; OBPP, Olweus Bullying Prevention Program; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

Risk of bias tool

Abbreviations: AC, age cohort design; BA/EC, quasi‐experimental design with before and after measures of bullying; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

This procedure was carried out by the first author in consultation with the second and third authors. 4 There were a number of studies from the previous Campbell Collaboration report (i.e., Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ) for which full texts were unavailable and thus, were excluded from several of the moderator analyses.

5.1. Descriptive

Various pieces of descriptive information were extracted from each of the 100 evaluations included in the present report. Information specific to the evaluation, such as the location or the start/end date, were recorded along with detailed information concerning the sample.

The total sample size and also the n of the relevant experimental and control groups were recorded. Age was extracted in two ways. First, where studies reported the mean age, or the age range (i.e., 8–10 years old) of participants this was recorded. Second, some studies did not report the age in years of participants, but we were able to record the school grade of included samples (i.e., Grades 4–6). Where reported, the % of females and males included in the sample was extracted.

We also coded descriptive information about the publication of the evaluation. Specifically, the type of publication and the publication year was recorded. The former represents a categorical moderator reflected whether or not the evaluation was published via the following channels, in order of hypothesized negative correlation with bias: (1) peer‐reviewed journal article; (2) chapter in an edited book/book; (3) governmental report or similar; (4) correspondence; and (5) unpublished masters or doctoral theses.

Correspondence was included to reflect data obtained from multiple evaluations of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP) sent to the second (M. M. T.) and third (D. P. F.) authors in preparation of their earlier Campbell review. Where evaluation data had been published in multiple formats, we favored the category associated with the least potential bias. For example, Domino ( 2011 ) reported the results of an evaluation of Take the LEAD program in a doctoral dissertation, but later published these results in a peer‐reviewed journal (i.e., Domino,  2013 ). In this scenario, the included study was coded as “article.”

5.2. Design

Included studies were further categorized according to several aspects of the research design used. We coded information regarding both the measures (i.e., instruments to measure bullying behaviors) and research design.

In relation to measurements of bullying, we recorded the timeframe (i.e., past 3 months or “ever”) in which participants were asked to report on experiences of bullying, the type of report used (i.e., self‐, peer‐, or teacher‐report), and data collection points (i.e., baseline, postintervention, 3‐month follow‐up, etc.). We also noted whether the measure was a continuous scale or a global item and whether bullying perpetration, victimization, or both, outcomes were measured.

As for the research design, we recorded information regarding the unit of allocation (or unit of randomization for RCTs; see below), the number of “clusters” included, whether groups were matched at baseline, and the number of experimental or control groups. For example, Elledge et al. ( 2010 ) included multiple control groups: matched controls and nonmatched controls.

Information about the evaluation methodology was also extracted from primary reports. The types of evaluation methodologies included in the present report are now described in further detail.

5.2.1. Evaluation methodology

In order to optimize the comparability of effect sizes, primary studies included in a meta‐analysis should use the same, or at least conceptually similar, research designs (Wilson,  2010 ). Following Farrington and Ttofi's ( 2009 ) criteria, we searched for evaluations using any of the following four research designs:

• (1) Randomized controlled trials (RCTs);
• (2) Before‐after/quasi‐experimental‐control designs (BA/EC);
• (3) Other quasi‐experimental designs; and
• (4) Age cohort designs.

Each of these methodologies varied on four key elements: as randomization of participants (or clusters of participants); use of experimental and control groups; and administration of quantitative bullying measures before and after intervention.

For example, all studies coded as RCT had to include random assignment to experimental conditions (i.e., intervention and control groups) but did not have to use before and after measures of bullying outcomes. RCTs are considered to be the “gold standard” of experimental evaluations (Weisburd et al.,  2001 ). Random assignment of a large number of units is used as a way in which evaluators can also randomize possible confounding variables between groups. As a result, we can infer that any observed differences result from the experimental manipulation (Farrington,  1983 ). The assumption is that randomization ensures that both observed and unobserved variables that may impact the results of an evaluation are also randomly distributed between groups. However, problems may arise if the unit‐of‐allocation, the unit‐of‐randomization, and the unit‐of‐analysis do not align.

Before‐after/quasi‐experimental‐control (BA/EC) designs, are conceptually similar to RCTs, but they do not involve random assignment to experimental conditions. Instead, participants or clusters of participants may be assigned to the intervention or control group on a self‐selected basis (e.g., Menesini et al.,  2012 ), for convenience (e.g., Sapouna et al.,  2010 ), or based on a greater need for intervention (e.g., Losey,  2009 ). Thus, BA/EC designs may be subject to selection biases (Farrington & Petrosino,  2001 ) that may reduce the validity of the results. These can be controlled if outcomes are measured before and after the intervention. Studies coded as BA/EC in the present report all used experimental and control groups but did not randomly assign participants to conditions. They also had to measure bullying outcomes before and after implementation of the intervention.

In contrast, studies categorized in the current review as using “other quasi‐experimental” designs utilized experimental and control conditions, without random assignment, but did not measure bullying behaviors before the intervention. Bullying outcomes were only measured after the implementation of an intervention in these studies. Therefore, selection bias is may be a threat to the internal validity of the results in such designs, which could have possibly attributed to pre‐existing differences between the groups (Farrington, 2003 ). For this reason, a decision was made to omit these designs from this updated meta‐analysis. Thus, relevant evaluations identified in the earlier Campbell Review and any new evaluations (since 2009) using this methodological design were excluded from the new meta‐analyses (see later).

In an age cohort design, students of a particular age X are initially assessed in the 1st year and serve as the control group for the evaluation of an intervention. Then, all students receive the intervention, and different students of the same age X (in the same school, in the 2nd year) serve as the experimental group (see Kärnä et al.,  2013 ). This design, which is largely used in evaluations of the OBPP, deals with some selection effects, since it ensures that experimental and control children are matched on age and school, and it deals with some threats to internal validity (e.g., ageing and maturation). However, this design may be influenced by period and testing effects, and the experimental and control groups may differ on other uncontrolled variables.

Studies employing RCTs, BA/EC, and age cohort designs were included in the present systematic and meta‐analytic review. Because of the potential threat to internal validity, we excluded studies ( n  = 9) in the other quasi‐experimental design category because they are poorly controlled and vulnerable to selection effects. Additionally, the four studies included in the earlier review that used an “other quasi‐experimental” design were excluded from the present systematic review.

5.3. Program

Using a socio‐ecological systems theory framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979 ) and the previous meta‐analysis (i.e., Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ) as guidelines, information about the specific intervention program was recorded. General details about the intervention, such as the name of the program (where relevant) and the aim of the intervention (e.g., Silva et al.,  2016 ) were noted along with more detailed information about the antibullying programs.

Intervention components at multiple levels of the socio‐ecological model (i.e., individual, peer, parent, and teacher, etc.) were recorded, such as work with peers, parental involvement, teacher training and whole‐school‐approach. Therefore, a brief description of each antibullying program based on this information is provided in Table  6 .

Systematic review results

In addition to specific program elements included in interventions, we also coded for possible sources of bias in evaluations and intervention development. Conflict of interest (COI) has previously been reported to impact evaluation results of many interventions and is a growing area of interest (COI; Eisner & Humphreys,  2012 ) with studies identified as having higher COI associated with larger overall effect sizes. Eisner and Humphreys outline many other possible sources of COI, such as financial gain to the evaluator, but this information was difficult to obtain for antibullying programs. Thus, a simple indication of potential COI was utilized.

We primarily focused on the overlap between individuals included as author/coauthor on the evaluation study, is also included on previous evaluations of the same program (e.g., NoTrap!; Menesini et al.,  2012 ; Palladino et al.,  2012 ,  2016 ), or is in fact referenced as the developer of that particular program (e.g., Tsiantis et al.,  2013 ). If no reference to a publication relating to the specific program was included, we concluded that the author had developed the program, and thus, the evaluation was deemed high risk.

Program specificity refers to whether the intervention program was specifically targeting bullying outcomes, or if many other outcomes were also included. Targeted programs are suggested to be more effective than generalized programs that aim to reduce many different behaviors in one intervention. Highly specific programs (i.e., those that only included bullying outcomes and very few others) were coded as “high.” Thus, programs that were less specific and included many other outcomes in addition to bullying measures were considered “low.” A third category was created (i.e., “medium”) to include studies that did multiple other outcomes in addition to bullying outcomes, but these additional variables were bullying‐related.

5.4. Outcomes

We also extracted several pieces of statistical information from primary studies that was required for the estimation of effect sizes. Statistics for bullying behaviors, for example, means and standard deviations or sample sizes and percentage of bullies and/or victims, were extracted for experimental and control groups at baseline and immediately postintervention timepoints.

We also coded bullying data for additional follow‐up timepoints where this information was reported by primary studies. Data was extracted and recorded separately for independent samples (i.e., female and male, Palladino et al.,  2016 ; older and younger, Baldry & Farrington, 2001) and different measures. For example, data for both self‐ and peer‐report measures were extracted from Beery and Hunt (2009) and for different forms of bullying (e.g., Frey et al.,  2005 ).

5.5. Risk of bias

As per the Campbell Collaboration reporting guidelines, a risk of bias index was created for the purpose of the present report. The EPOC tool was utilized to assess the risk category of each study on several items relating to the methodological quality of evaluations. Following earlier Campbell review (e.g., Valdebenito et al.,  2018 ) this tool was also used for nonrandomized studies as other risk of bias measurement instruments were considered inappropriate for nonscientific or medical trials.

The following section describes the procedure for addressing risk of bias in the present meta‐analysis. Each primary evaluation was measured on the following items: (1) allocation sequence (AS); (2) Allocation concealment (AC); (3) Baseline equivalence on outcomes (BE); (4) Baseline equivalence on participant characteristics (BC); (5) Incomplete outcome data (ID); (6) Contamination protection (CP); and (7) Selective outcome reporting (SOR). The applicability of these categories for each of the methodological designs included in the present report is outlined in Table  5 . Each study was categorized as being high, low, or unclear (if insufficient information was available) risk on each of these EPOC items.

6. INCLUDED INTERVENTIONS

In total, 67 different school‐based antibullying programs were evaluated by primary studies included in our updated meta‐analysis. Descriptions of each of these interventions is provided in the following section of this report. These narrative reviews of included antibullying programs are based on the best available information provided by the primary studies. Twenty‐one of the evaluated antibullying programs were included (only) in the previous meta‐analysis (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ). A number of popular school‐based antibullying programs (n = 7; i.e., Bully Proofing Your School [BPYS], Friendly Schools, KiVa, OBPP, Steps to Respect, ViSC, and Youth Matters) had been re‐evaluated or additional publications since 2009. Hence, the majority of programs evaluated in our updated meta‐analysis ( n  = 40) are new bullying prevention and intervention programs.

The following sections provides detailed summaries of each antibullying program included in our systematic review. Descriptions marked with an * were taken from the previous review (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ). To provide the reader with a detailed overview of existing antibullying programs studies subsequently excluded from the meta‐analysis are also included here.

6.1. *Antibullying intervention in Australian secondary schools

This antibullying intervention consisted of several activities that aimed to increase awareness and identification of bullying, to promote empathy for targets of bullying and to provide students with strategies to cope with bullying (Hunt,  2007 , p. 22). The intervention was based on an educational antibullying program, which was delivered by teachers. There was no specific training for teachers. Information about bullying was provided at parent and teacher meetings. Teacher meetings were held in conjunction with regular staff meetings while parent meetings were held after hours. A summary of the information covered at parent meetings was also published in the school newsletter in an attempt to target the wider parent population. Finally, the program includes a 2‐h classroom‐based discussion of bullying (offered by teachers) using activities from an antibullying workbook written by Murphy and Lewers ( 2000 ).

6.2. Anti‐Bullying Pledge Scheme (ABPS)

The ABPS describes a number of local antibullying schemes implemented in UK schools as a result of government recommendations and guidance (Pryce & Frederickson,  2013 ). Schools adopted a declaration of commitment, and intervention components followed a theoretical framework guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,  1991 ).

The ABPS is a universal prevention program, that aims to reduce the prevalence of bullying perpetration and victimization in schools and increase students' perceptions of safety and support within the school environment (Pryce & Frederickson,  2013 ). Participating schools were assigned a facilitator, referred to as a “pledge supporter,” and a detailed intervention manual. The manual outlined the stages involved in implementing the ABPS program. The stages are as follows:

• Initial meeting with school management and the pledge supporter
• Intervention planning meeting
• School representatives make a declaration of commitment to the intervention
• Staff, student, and parent surveys are circulated
• Results from the surveys were collated and used to tailor intervention components to the individual schools' needs
• Ongoing visits and support from the pledge supporter throughout implementation.

6.3. *Be‐prox program

The Be‐Prox program was specifically designed to tackle bullying and victimization among kindergarten students. According to Alsaker and Valkanover ( 2001 , pp. 177–178), the somewhat higher adult‐children ratio, the interest of preschool teachers in socialization, the greater flexibility as to scheduling and teaching, and the admiration of many preschoolers for their teachers are ideal conditions for the implementation of preventive programs against bully/victim problems. The basic principle of Be‐Prox was to enhance preschool teachers' capacity to handle bully/victim problems (Alsaker,  2004 , p. 291). The program engaged teachers in an intensive focused supervision for approximately 4 months. Central features of Be‐Prox were the emphasis on group discussions, mutual support and co‐operation between consultants and teachers and between teachers and parents (Alsaker,  2004 , pp. 292–293).

The teacher training was provided in six steps (Alsaker,  2004 ; fig. 15.1, p. 292). Initially, teachers were given information about victimization (step 1) and the implications of this information was discussed (step 2). During the third step, specific implementation tasks were introduced and the teachers worked in groups in preparation for the practical implementation (step 4). After this preparation, teachers implemented specific preventive elements in the classroom (step 5) for a specific period of time. After that, teachers met and discussed their experiences of the implementation of the preventive measures (step 6).

In eight meetings over a 4‐month period, issues related to the prevention of bullying were addressed. The main purpose of the first meeting was sensitization. Teachers were asked to describe any possible bully/victim problems in their schools and were then given information about bullying and other types of aggressive behavior. They were also presented with the main principles of the program. The importance of contact between kindergarten teachers and children's parents was also emphasized and teachers were advised to consider the possibility of organizing a meeting with parents. In the second meeting, the importance of setting limits and rules to preschool children was discussed. Teachers were invited to elaborate some behavior codes in their classroom in collaboration with the children and to be ready to present them during the third meeting. Also, as a second homework task, teachers were asked to organize a parent meeting.

During the third meeting, teachers discussed their experiences of implementing classroom rules against bullying. The main focus of this meeting was the need for consistent teacher behavior, the difference between positive and negative sanctioning and the use of basic learning principles in the classroom. The main focus of the fourth session was on the role and responsibility of children who were not involved in bullying and of bystanders in the prevention of victimization. Teachers were asked to draw some kind of personality profiles of passive and aggressive victims and of bullies and to present them to the rest of the group. After this task, teachers were presented with research findings regarding the characteristics of children who were or were not involved in bullying. As a homework task for the next meeting, teachers were asked to systematically observe noninvolved children and to develop some means of involving them in the prevention of victimization.

During the fifth meeting, research‐based information about motor development and body awareness among preschool children was presented to teachers. A discussion between teachers and program researchers of children's self‐perceptions of strength, of peers' perceptions of strengths of victims of bullies, and other motor characteristics of children, aimed to yield important insights. The overall discussion and exchange of information among teachers aimed to promote teachers' understanding about how to change these perceptions within the classroom setting. Specific goals to be achieved within the classroom were clearly set, such as training in empathy and body awareness among children, participation and involvement of noninvolved children and talks with all the children about the situation in their kindergarten. During the sixth meeting, time was given to reflect on the goals formulated at the beginning of the prevention program. Teachers were also given time to discuss their experiences with implementing the goals of the fifth meeting within the classroom settings. The last two meetings followed a similar format, with time given for reflection on goals achieved, problems dealt with, and an overall evaluation of the program.

6.4. *Befriending intervention

Befriending intervention was an antibullying program that relied mainly on a peer support model. The overall aims of the program were: (a) to reduce bullying episodes through developing in bullies an awareness of their own and others' behavior; (b) to enhance children's capacity to offer support to the victims of bullying; (c) to enhance responsibility and involvement on the part of bystanders; and (d) to improve the quality of interpersonal relationships in the class group (Menesini et al.,  2003 , p. 1).

The antibullying intervention was offered in five steps (Menesini et al.,  2003 , p. 5). During the first phase, which targeted the class level (class intervention), several activities were offered aiming to increase children's awareness of prosocial and helping behaviors and to promote positive attitudes toward others. Through work at the class level, the school authorities sensitized and prepared the whole school population for the new service that the school unit was about to implement. In this way, another goal was achieved, namely developing values and attitudes toward “peer support activities” in the whole school population.

During the second phase of the program, the “peer supporters” were selected. Approximately three to four supporters were allocated in each classroom and were selected based on a combination of techniques, such as self‐ and peer‐nominations. These children were then trained in special full‐day sessions or in regular meetings during school time (phase three) so that they knew how to deal with other children and how to facilitate interactions among other children. Teachers and other professionals (psychologists and social workers) took part in these sessions as well. The overall aim of this phase of the antibullying program was to help peer supporters to enhance their listening and communication skills since they would be the mediators in the interactions among children.

During the fourth phase of the program, peer supporters worked in their classes with the assistance and close monitoring of their teachers. The teachers in each class organized “circle meetings” during which the needs of specific children involved in bullying (target children) were identified. Target children were contacted and, after their consent and cooperation, were offered help by the peer supporters. Peer supporters were not only assigned to specific tasks involving the target children but were also supervised by the teachers so that they were given constant feedback on their on‐going work in the class.

During the final phase of the Befriending Intervention, the leading group of peer supporters were involved in training other children in the class, so that more children could be involved in the program (in the transmission of training and passing on the roles).

6.5. *Behavioral program for bullying boys

This program targeted male youth, from a low socio‐economic area, predominately inhabited by individuals of color, involved in bullying. The program was based on the findings of an in‐depth needs assessment within three schools and targeted a specific number of male students aged sixteen who (based on the results of the questionnaire that had been administered) were “considered to be a serious threat to the harmonious functioning of everyday school life” (Meyer & Lesch,  2000 , p. 59). The theoretical basis of the program could be found in the Social Interactional Model for the development of aggression (Meyer & Lesch,  2000 , p. 61) and involved a behavioral approach for tackling the problem of bullying. The program was implemented by psychology students for ten nonconsecutive weeks, with 20‐h‐long sessions held twice weekly at the school, during school hours.

The components of the 17‐session behavioral program included homework tasks, modeling, self‐observation, role‐plays, and a token economy system for reinforcing positive behaviors. According to the program designers “the chief contingency for behavioral change was the token economy system, using Wonderland Games tokens, chocolates and cinema tickets as reward for non‐bullying behavior” (Meyer & Lesch,  2000 , p. 62). Each participant was monitored by himself and by a “buddy” who was selected in each session prior to the monitoring. Each session included an opportunity for feedback on the students' progress in the week, a discussion of a relevant applied topic, role‐playing, games, and drawing. The program designers pointed out the limitations of the intervention strategy. As they indicate (Meyer & Lesch,  2000 , p. 67) “the program was too short and structured to address the issues that were disclosed in sessions, as the severity of the nature of the aggression in the schools and vast social problems was seriously underestimated.”

6.6. Beyond the Hurt

Sutherland ( 2010 ) implemented the Beyond the Hurt program, a peer‐led school‐based bullying intervention and prevention program, developed by the Red Cross. Beyond the Hurt is a high school program and emphasizes education, prevention and intervention to reduce prevalence of bullying perpetration and victimization. Sutherland ( 2010 , p. 84) describes the four key components of the intervention: (1) education and training of peer facilitators, (2) in‐class presentations given by peer facilitators, (3) teacher workshops, and (4) online training material for teachers and community members.

This peer‐led program trains and educates select peer facilitators, who become the implementers of the intervention program within participating schools. These students are guided by a teacher and Red Cross professional throughout training and implementation of class presentations highlighting several bullying‐related issues. The overarching aim of the Beyond the Hurt program is to create a positive school and class climate in which students are encouraged to develop and maintain healthy prosocial relationships, and bullying perpetration and victimization are not supported. The program aims to promote antibullying attitudes among participants and encourage empathy and prosocial support for victims of bullying.

6.7. *Bulli and Pupe

Bulli and Pupe was an intervention program concerned with bullying and family violence. The program, developed by Baldry (2001), was “directed towards the individual and peer group, and aimed to enhance awareness about violence and its negative effects” (Baldry & Farrington,  2004 , p. 3). The intervention package consisted of three videos and a booklet divided into three parts; each video was linked to one part of the booklet. Each part of the booklet was meant to take the form of an interactive lesson where professionals, experienced in school and juvenile processes, discussed three issues according to the structure of the manual.

The first part of the booklet, entitled “Bullying among peers,” emphasized teen violence among peers. The booklet presented vignettes and graphics that reported research findings on bullying in an attempt to raise students' awareness of this issue. The corresponding video showed teenagers talking about bullying based on their own experiences and judgments. The second part of the booklet, entitled “Children witnessing domestic violence,” analyzed the effects of domestic violence on children and the repercussions for school achievement and peer relations. In the accompanying video, children in a shelter for battered women were presented, talking about their personal experiences and emotions. Finally, the third part of the booklet, entitled “Cycle of violence,” dealt with the long‐term effects of violence on adults who were victims of violence in their childhood. The corresponding video consisted of an interview conducted with a 19‐year old boy who had a violent father.

The program was in the first place delivered in 3 days by experts who, together with teachers, discussed about bullying, read the booklet and analyzed its content. The program was taken over by teachers who once a week created a facilitation group and allowed children to discuss any problems they encountered with their peers. The program was more effective with secondary students because it required its participants to have good interpersonal and cognitive skills (Baldry & Farrington,  2004 , p. 4).

6.8. The Bully Prevention Challenge Course Curriculum (BPCCC)

Battey ( 2009 ) implemented the BPCCC (Haggas,  2006 ) to students over two 45 min classes, on 4 days of one school week. The program was implemented by trained facilitators, whom included the schools' physical education/health teacher. The program commenced by providing participants with name tags and organizing some warm‐up physical activities. Next, the physical education/health teacher provided participants with information about bullying, such as, identifying and addressing bullying, who to talk to and where to seek support. Subsequent group discussions focused on empathy and understanding each other's differences. Audience participation activities also required the students to engage to represent the number of students whom had been a victim or bully.

6.9. Bully Proofing Your School

“Bully‐Proofing Your School” was a comprehensive, school‐based intervention program for the prevention of bullying (Menard & Grotpeter,  2014 ; Menard et al.,  2008 ; Toner,  2010 ). The program involved three major components: (1) heightened awareness of the problem of bullying, involving a questionnaire to measure the extent of bullying and the creation of classroom rules related to zero tolerance for bullying; (2) teaching students protective skills for dealing with bullying, resistance to victimization and providing assistance to potential victims by teaching assertiveness skills; and (3) creation of a positive school climate where students were encouraged to work as positive and supportive bystanders (Menard et al.,  2008 , p. 7).

The primary targets of BPYS were elementary and middle school students. School staff were involved as both secondary targets of intervention (since changes in their behavior was a requirement for the construction of a positive antibullying school environment) and as agents delivering the intervention to students. Teachers were given information and strategies to help them recognize bullying incidents among their students and how to effectively deal with these behaviors (Menard & Grotpeter,  2014 ).

The intervention in the classes consisted of a classroom curriculum, which included seven sessions of approximately 30–40 min. Each session was delivered by a teacher or by mental health staff. After completion of the classroom curriculum materials, teachers were encouraged to hold weekly classroom meetings during which students could be helped to reflect on their behaviors. Parents were offered information through newsletters. Individual parents of students involved in bullying as either perpetrators or victims were given consultation (Menard & Grotpeter,  2014 ).

6.10. Chinese antibullying intervention

Ju et al. ( 2009 ) implemented an antibullying program in a Chinese primary school employing an action research framework. There were two main aims of this intervention program. First, the program aimed to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization both on students' way to, and from, school. Second, the study aimed to investigate practical intervention elements that could be applied nationwide to Chinese primary school children (Ju et al.,  2009 ).

The initial step in this intervention was the training of teachers on the fundamental principles of action research. This training program targeted the following components of educational research: (1) research methodology in education; (2) knowledge of school bullying; (3) components of action research; and (4) intervention skills, such as brainstorming and role‐playing. Second, a 5‐week intervention program was designed and implemented by teachers in classrooms. Components that targeted both victims and bullies specifically were also incorporated into the intervention.

6.11. The Confident Kids program

The Confident Kids program is an antibullying intervention designed for early adolescent males who were experiencing anxiety as a result of being bullied at school (Berry & Hunt,  2009 ). The foundations of the program lie in cognitive‐behavioral therapy, employing both anxiety management techniques and antibullying elements. Based on the “Cool Kids Program” (Lyneham et al., 2003), this intervention program aims to reduce bullying victimization by targeting factors that increase the likelihood of victimization. Therefore, this program focuses primarily on issues such as: self‐esteem, coping strategies; social skills; emotional regulation; and internalizing behaviors.

The program was implemented over a period of 8 weeks, and included student and parent involvement. Students participated in weekly group sessions led by a team of assistant and qualified clinical psychologists. These sessions incorporated a combination of tasks including: skill demonstration; role‐playing; and group discussion. Homework was allocated after each session and participants were encouraged to apply skills acquired in real‐life settings between each session.

Sessions covered a variety of issues, including both cognitive‐behavioral anxiety management techniques and antibullying information. Seven core sessions focused on the following topics: psycho‐education; cognitive restructuring (2 sessions); graded exposure; adaptive coping strategies; improving social skills; and self‐esteem. A final session targeted relapse prevention and provided a general overview of the skills learned throughout the program. Parents participated in sessions that ran parallel to the student program. Group discussions targeted the strategies being taught to student participants and also possible parent factors that could influence effectiveness of intervention for their children, for example, parental anxiety.

6.12. Cyberprogram 2.0

Cyberprogram 2.0 is a cyberbullying intervention program that also incorporates elements on school bullying (Garaigordobil & Martínez‐Valderrey,  2015 ). The intervention is delivered over 19 sessions, and outlines the following four main goals:

• To outline and conceptualize bullying and cyberbullying, including identifying the different roles involved (e.g., bullies, victims, and bystanders).
• To illustrate the consequences of bullying and cyberbullying for all those involved
• To develop coping strategies in order to reduce bullying and cyberbullying behaviors.
• Developing positive social and emotional skills, such as empathy, active listening, anger management, conflict resolution strategies, and diversity tolerance.

A wide range of activities and techniques are used, such as, role‐playing, brainstorming, case studies, and guided discussion. The Cyberprogram 2.0 intervention followed a specific methodological framework, employing four key components for implementation. They are as follows: (1) inter‐session constancy: intervention was delivered in weekly 1‐h sessions; (2) spatial‐temporal constancy: intervention was delivered in the same place and at the same time each week; (3) constancy of adult facilitator: intervention was implemented by the same adult, who same psycho‐pedagogical training, each week; and (4) constancy in the session structure: sessions being with group instruction and activities. There is then a following reflection phase that is led by the adult.

6.13. Daphne III

Daphne III was an international antibullying initiative implemented and developed in association with numerous organizations. In this study (Papacosta et al., 2014), school antibullying programs were coordinated in Cyprus by the Association for the Psychosocial Health of Children and Adolescents (APHCA). Other influential “partners” included the Cyprus Ministry of Health, mental health services, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Ministry of Education and Culture, and Educational Psychology services. Organizations from other European countries included: Child Line [ Vsi Vaiku Linija ], in Lithuania, and Nicolaus Copericus University, in Poland, were also involved.

The overarching aim of this initiative was to educate 5th and 6th grade primary school students about bullying, and the many different forms it can take (Papacosta et al., 2014). Teachers implemented the program in their classrooms, and were trained by psychology and mental health professionals. There were eleven workshops involved in the program that followed a structured curriculum manual. This manual also provided schools with suggestions and recommendations on ways in with they could prevent, and intervene in, bullying situations.

6.14. *Dare to Care: BPYS program

“Dare to Care; Bully Proofing Your School” was a modification of the “Bully Proofing Your School” program (Beran et al.,  2004 , p. 103), which in turn was modeled on the Olweus Program. This antibullying program placed emphasis on clinical support to victims and perpetrators of bullying in the form of individual and group counseling. It also enabled collaboration with community services. The essence of the program was to encourage accountability for creating solutions among all parties involved in the education system (Beran et al.,  2004 , p. 104).

The program included several steps. Program facilitators provided to school personnel information and training on issues related to bullying in schools (in a full‐day professional development workshop). This workshop aimed to ensure that the program principles would be reflected in the overall curriculum and would be sustained over time. Information was also given to parents. Then, students, parents and school staff collaborated in the development of a school antibullying policy. This policy had the aim of identifying caring and aggressive behaviors and consequences of those behaviors, but with a focus on reparation rather than punishment. The antibullying policy was posted throughout the school. Finally, the program involved the implementation, on behalf of the teachers, of a classroom curriculum that educated children about the nature of bullying and strategies to avoid victimization. The curriculum included discussion, role‐plays, artwork, books, videos and skits presented to school staff, parents, and other children.

6.15. Defeat Bullying

The Defeat Bullying program is a curriculum‐based antibullying program that was published by the National Society for prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC, UK) in 2007 (Herrick,  2012 ). The program materials were available to download online, as part of a nationwide campaign to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization in UK schools. The overarching aim of the Defect Bullying program is to raise awareness and improve attitudes toward bullying, educate about bullying‐related feelings and emotions, and to develop effective intervention and conflict resolution strategies (Herrick,  2012 , p. 85). Based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,  1979 ), the program aims to establish an in‐class antibullying norm, so that students will be encouraged to adopt this norm, and thus, reduce levels of bullying perpetration and victimization.

There are five key lessons implemented throughout the program, and each incorporates a range of individual, class and group activities (Herrick,  2012 ). The lessons cover the following five themes: (1) understanding attitudes and values toward bullying; (2) educating about the feelings that occur as a result of bullying; (3) embracing diversity; (4) safety awareness; and (5) encouraging bystanders to get involved in antibullying strategies. The available intervention materials were also reviewed by groups of teachers, and any necessary amendments were incorporated. For example, Herrick ( 2012 ) describes that following teacher discussion groups, homework assignments relating to each lesson were developed and implemented. Parents of participating students were also invited to attend an antibullying workshop led by the researcher.

6.16. *Dutch antibullying program

The antibullying initiative in the Netherlands was inspired by the Olweus program (Fekkes et al.,  2006 , p. 639). The program was specifically designed to tackle bullying behavior by involving teachers, parents and students. It offered a 2‐day training session for teachers in order to inform them about bullying behavior and to instruct them about how to deal with bullying incidents in schools. During the intervention period, teachers had access to the training staff for additional advice. Intervention schools were supported by an external organization named KPC, which specialized in training school staff and in assisting schools in setting up new curricula and guidelines. The core intervention program included: (1) antibullying training for teachers, (2) a bullying survey, (3) antibullying rules and a written antibullying school policy, (4) increased intensity of surveillance, and (5) information meetings or parents.

During the intervention, there was careful dissemination of the antibullying program to intervention schools. Also, the researchers provided information about the number of intervention and control schools, which have used the above‐mentioned elements of intervention. Finally, intervention schools were supplied with the booklet “Bullying in schools: how to deal with it” and with a “Bullying Test,” a computerized questionnaire that children could complete anonymously in the classroom.

6.17. Dutch Skills for Life

The Skills for Life program is a Dutch universal school‐based behavioral and health prevention program for adolescents aged 13–16 years old (Diekstra,  1996 ; Gravesteijn & Diekstra,  2013 ). The program targets prosocial behavior, self‐awareness, social awareness, self‐control, interpersonal skills, and ethical decision making to reduce behavioral and health problems (Fekkes et al.,  2016 ). The program is based on social learning theory and Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. As a result, the program aims to reduce bullying by enabling students to learn from each other in a classroom setting through behavioral modeling.

The program is implemented by teachers, who attend two 3‐day training workshops prior to implementation and receive “booster” training sessions throughout the intervention (Fekkes et al.,  2016 ). The intervention is comprised of 25 lessons that are delivered over the course of two academic years. First, four lessons address awareness and handling of thoughts and feelings. Skills such as interpersonal problem solving, emotional regulation, and critical thinking are targeted. There are twelve additional lessons in the 1st year, and nine more lessons in the 2nd year of implementation. These generally focus on skills that are applicable to particular behavioral or health experiences. For example, lessons are aimed at: dealing with bullying; setting and respecting boundaries; substance use; norms and values; friendships; sexuality; suicidal ideation; and conflicts with peers and/or teachers. Various activities are utilized throughout the program, including, active enactment, DVDs, role play, discussion and feedback.

6.18. Dynamic Approach to School Improvement (DASI)

The DASI (Kyriakides, Creemers, Papastylianou, et al.,  2014 ; Kyriakides, Creemers, Muijs, et al.,  2014 ) was a whole‐school approach to bullying prevention implemented in several European countries, such as: Cyprus, Greece, UK, Belgium and the Netherlands. This approach draws factors from the educational effectiveness model (Creemers & Kyriakides,  2008 ,  2012 ). The intervention targets specific school factors, that is, (1) school teaching policy, (2) school learning environment, and (3) school evaluation. This framework was previously found to improve academic achievement (e.g., Kyriakides,  2008 ).

At the beginning of the intervention, the research team held training for participating school staff. The theoretical framework was introduced, and a detailed manual was provided. The aim of the handbook was to facilitate school stakeholders to develop strategies and action plans that were specific to the schools' needs (Kyriakides, Creemers, Papastylianou, et al.,  2014 ). Support was offered to each school by the research team throughout the process.

Teacher surveys were distributed prior to implementation in order to highlight specific areas that needed improvement. The next phase of the intervention involved school stakeholders coming together to form cooperative committees with representatives of parents, students, and teachers. These committees then collaborated to develop action plans and strategies to address specific problems in their schools. Committees formulated plans to implement particular intervention components that best suited their specific needs. Therefore, the schools participating did not necessarily implement the same intervention components or activities. Schools were required to retain log books of activities undertaken.

Kyriakides, Creemers, and Papastylianou, et al. ( 2014 ) provide an outline of the intervention components implemented in one experimental school involved in their trial. For example, the following are identified as essential elements implemented in order to reduce bullying:

• “Student behavior outside the classroom”—involves developing clear and efficient antibullying policy, increased teacher vigilance in bullying “hot spots” and effective supervision of students.
• Improved school learning environment
• “Rewarding good behavior”—enforcing a system that acts as a nonpunitive approach to antibullying, by motivating students to behave in a prosocial manner.
• “Collaboration and interaction between teachers”—encouraging teachers to work together and communicate effectively about bullying issues in their schools.
• Other intervention components, including, encouraging and supporting peer bystanders; identifying and support “at risk” and vulnerable students; and creating student‐made videos about bullying issues.

6.19. *Ecological antibullying program

The Ecological antibullying program examined peer group and school environment processes “utilizing a systemic interactional model with evaluations at each level of intervention” (Rahey & Craig,  2002 , p. 283). The overall aim of the program was the creation of a supportive and safe school environment in which firm limits against bullying were established. The specific goals of the program included raising awareness of the problem of bullying, increasing empathy, encouraging peers to speak against bullying and formulating clear rules against bullying.

The 12‐week program was based on the “Bully Proofing Your School” program which was designed to increase the understanding of bullying and decrease the incidence of bullying (Rahey & Craig,  2002 , p. 285). The program elements included a psycho‐educational component implemented within each classroom, a peer mediation component and specialized groups for children involved in bullying.

At the school‐wide level, the psycho‐educational program was implemented by psychology students who received training sessions and manuals prior to intervention. Prior to the program, at a school assembly the program was introduced to students. The assembly signaled the formal beginning of the intervention. The classroom programs involved interactive educational approaches such as role playing and puppet techniques. The topics addressed were bullying and victimization, conflict resolution, empathy, listening skills and individual differences (Rahey & Craig,  2002 , p. 286).

Individual programs for children involved in bullying were also part of the intervention. The relevant sessions consisted of social skills, listening, empathy training and supportive counseling. Each weekly session lasted 45 min. The program also included intervention at the teacher level. Teacher programs consisted of meetings with teachers to discuss bullying, intervention approaches, and student support for those directly involved in bullying. During the intervention, the program coordinators met with principals and teachers to offer support.

6.20. Emotional Literacy Intervention

Knowler and Frederickson ( 2013 ) evaluated the effectiveness of an emotional literacy intervention targeted on bullying behaviors to reduce bullying victimization in UK schools. Selected schools were previously implementing the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL; Department for Education and Skills,  2005 ) program. One of the themes included in the SEAL program is “Say no to bullying” (Knowler & Frederickson,  2013 ), however the overall program aims to improve students' social relationships, motivation, learning strategies, and holistic school improvement.

The specific emotional literacy intervention implemented and evaluated by Knowler and Frederickson ( 2013 ) involved teaching emotional literacy skills to small groups of students (Faupel,  2003 ). In the current evaluation, the intervention was delivered to groups of “low emotional literacy” and “high emotional literacy” groups distinguished by scores above, or below, median scores on the Emotional Literacy assessment‐pupil form (ELA‐PF; Faupel,  2003 ). The intervention program employed 12 weekly lessons and was implemented by trained teaching aids (Knowler & Frederickson,  2013 ). The program consisted of four main concepts: (1) self‐awareness, (2) self‐regulation, (3) empathy, and (4) social skills. Lessons employed a variation of behavioral and cognitive‐behavioral elements (Faupel,  2003 ).

6.21. Empathy training program

This intervention program was developed for children identified as bullies and aimed to increase their empathetic skills in order to reduce their bullying behaviors (Şahin,  2012 ). The empathy training program was implemented over eleven 75‐min sessions that were based on a curriculum lesson plan developed by the author. Several cognitive techniques were utilized throughout the program, such as: recognizing, evaluating and naming feelings; diadtic, experimental, modeling and role‐playing, in order to improve the students' cognitive abilities in relation to empathy. Each lesson required the students to work together to develop a slogan that emulated the content of the session. The following is an outline of the first 4 weekly lessons, and the associated slogan developed, (for a full outline see: Şahin,  2012 , p. 1327; Table  2 ).

Slogan: Be kind, loving and forgiving to each other to lead a happy life .

Slogan: Living without the awareness of feelings is like driving a car with its brakes on .

Slogan: One who claims to know everything about the universe but nothing about himself, actually knows nothing .

Slogan: We can look at the same thing but view it differently .

6.22. *Expect respect

Expect Respect was a school‐based program that aimed to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. The project was developed by Safe Place, the sole provider of comprehensive sexual and domestic violence prevention and intervention services in Austin, Texas (Rosenbluth et al.,  2004 , p. 211). The program targeted the involvement of all members of the school community in recognizing and responding to bullying and sexual harassment. The overall project design was inspired by the work of Olweus (Rosenbluth et al.,  2004 , p. 212). Expect Respect consisted of five core program components, namely a classroom curriculum, staff training, policy development, parent education and support services.

The classroom curriculum was based on 12 weekly sessions adapted from a specific manual called “Bullyproof: a teachers” guide on teasing and bullying for use with fourth and fifth grade students' (Whitaker et al.,  2004 , p. 330). The Bullyproof curriculum was designed to be taught in conjunction with literature typically read by fourth and fifth graders. Although the antibullying curriculum was designed to be implemented by teachers, within the framework of the Expect Respect program, it was jointly led by Safe Place Staff and teachers or school counselors (Whitaker et al.,  2004 , p. 331). The curriculum aimed to increase the ability and willingness of bystanders to intervene in bullying situations, thus reducing the social acceptability of bullying and sexual harassment. The Bullyproof lessons included writing assignments, role‐plays of how to intervene in bullying situations, class discussions and so on.

With regard to the staff training, a 6‐h training was provided to project staff, counselors, and fifth grade teachers. The training was given by the author of the specific manual and aimed to prepare school personnel to respond effectively to bullying incidents. In addition, 3‐h training sessions were provided once per semester for all personnel, including bus drivers, cafeteria workers, hall monitors and office staff. The training presentation included research on bullying and sexual harassment; strategies to enhance mutual respect among students; practice in using lessons from the curriculum; and methods for integrating the lessons into other subject areas including language arts and health.

School administrators were encouraged to develop an antibullying policy (policy development) in their school to ensure consistent responses by all staff members to incidents of bullying and sexual harassment. Principals were expected to present the policy to school staff, students and parents. In order to facilitate the overall procedure of policy development, Expect Respect staff provided an initial policy template to school administrators (Whitaker et al.,  2004 , p. 332) and each school was encouraged to expand this initial policy in accordance with the specific needs of their unit.

The Expect Respect program also included parent training. Educational presentations were offered to parents, twice a year, providing information about the project. The information given to parents through these meetings (as well as through parent newsletters sent home) was aimed at enhancing parents' strategies to help children involved in bullying as bullies, victims, bully‐victims, or bystanders.

Further support services were provided such as continuous assistance of school counselors by Safe Place staff. School counselors were given a specialized session on how to deal with students who were repeatedly involved in bullying as either perpetrators or victims. They were also provided with a comprehensive resource manual containing reading and resource materials on bullying, sexual harassment and domestic violence.

6.23. fairplayer.manual

The fairplayer.manual is a structured, curriculum‐based antibullying program for Grade 7–9 students (Bull et al.,  2009 ; Wölfer & Scheithauer,  2014 ). The overarching aim of the intervention is to reduce bullying and relational aggression by improving students' social and moral competencies. The program focuses on raising awareness, changing attitudes, and encouraging bystander intervention.

The program is implemented over 15‐weekly 90 min lessons, and can be delivered either by trained teachers (Bull et al.,  2009 ), or psychologists (Wölfer & Scheithauer,  2014 ). Intervention lessons employ cognitive‐behavioral techniques and target nine specific topics. The first introductory lesson introduces the program to students, and class antibullying rules are developed. Two following lessons are concerned with raising awareness about bullying‐related issues, such as, the various forms of bullying and the consequences associated with perpetration and victimization. One lesson subsequently focuses on improving students' understanding of their own and peers' feelings. A further two lessons highlight the numerous participant roles involved in bullying, for example, bullies, victims, outsiders (i.e., noninvolved), assistants, and re‐inforcers (Wölfer & Scheithauer,  2014 ). The latter roles describe different forms of bystanders, those who witness bullying and allow it to happen and those who reinforce bullying behaviors. Social dynamics in the classroom is also addressed in one intervention session. By addressing the different dynamics, networks and norms socially in the class, this lesson aims to improve the classroom climate and encourage co‐operation among students. Another intervention lesson models and promotes bystander intervention in order to encourage noninvolved children to become actively engaged with intervening in bullying situations that they may witness.

Following these core awareness‐raising and knowledge‐improving lessons, participating students undertake five social skill‐training session s. These lessons focus on developing social, emotional, and moral skills of participants, in order to combat bullying. Perspective taking, empathy, and moral dilemmas are just some of the issues that are included. Diversity is the topic addressed in one of the following lessons, where students learn to respect and appreciate diversity. Finally, a concluding lesson brings together all of the issues covered by the intervention and demonstrates ways in which participants can utilize skills and knowledge in their everyday lives.

6.24. FearNot!

The FearNot! (Fun with Empathetic Agents to achieve Novel Outcomes in Teaching; Sapouna et al.,  2010 ) was an immersive learning intervention that aimed to reduce bullying victimization. Students from British and German primary schools participated in the virtual learning program for weekly 30‐min sessions over the course of three consecutive weeks. Participating schools were required to have adequate computer facilities in order to be able to run the program.

During intervention sessions bullying scenarios were enacted by male and female 3D animated characters. The content of these scenarios reflected the characters' genders, for example, scenarios involving male characters included more incidents of physical bullying, whereas female characters demonstrated more relational bullying. Following each of the bullying episodes, participants were asked to interact and provide the animated victim of bullying with a suitable coping strategy to prevent future victimization. The program then enabled students to see the outcomes of their suggested strategy. In some circumstances, the animated victim of bullying responded that they did not feel emotionally adequate enough to carry out the suggested coping strategy (e.g., not strong enough to stand up to the bully).

Based on previous research (e.g., Kochenderfer & Ladd,  2000 ), students were then provided with an indication of how successful their proposed coping mechanism would be in real‐world bullying scenarios. For example, students were provided with a score on a scale of zero (never successful) to ten (always successful; Sapouna et al.,  2010 ). In addition to the computerized program, teachers in intervention schools were provided with a detailed intervention manual. However, during the FearNot! program, teachers were instructed only to assist students with issues of comprehension, and not to guide them on suitable responses to the bullying scenarios.

6.25. Fourth R

The Fourth R: Strategies for Healthy Youth Relationships is a dating violence prevention program that targeted bullying perpetration and victimization as secondary outcomes (Cissner & Ayoub,  2014 ). This curriculum‐based intervention program was based on social learning theory (Bandura,  1978 ), and was implemented in classrooms by trained teachers during health and physical education classes. Participating teachers completed an intensive 1‐day training session that provided them with the skills to implement the program effectively. Detailed manuals and lesson outlines/materials were provided, and the Fourth R curriculum was integrated into existing health and physical education curricula.

The Fourth R was designed as a 21‐lesson curriculum that incorporates a variety of activities and lessons. Role‐playing, individual, pair and group work, and detailed examples/scenarios of conflict are examples of Fourth R‐style tasks. Program lessons were categorized into the following 3 units: (1) Personal Safety and Injury Prevention; (2) Healthy Growth and Sexuality; and (3) Substance Use and Abuse. Each unit consisted of seven 45‐min lessons. The Fourth R was also designed to be implemented in either gender‐segregated or co‐ed classrooms.

6.26. *Friendly Schools Project

“Friendly Schools” was a theoretically grounded program. Its educational techniques (e.g., role modeling, drama activities, skills training, etc.) were based on notions derived from Social Cognitive theory, the Health Belief Model and Problem Behavior theory (Cross et al.,  2004 ,  2011 ). An interesting aspect of this program is that it was based on the results of a systematic review (Cross et al.,  2004 , p. 187), which provided a set of key elements to be included in the final intervention strategy. The program targeted bullying at three levels: (a) the whole‐school community, (b) the students' families, and (c) the fourth and fifth grade students and their teachers.

With regard to the whole‐school intervention component, in each school, a Friendly Schools Committee was organized with key individuals (e.g., a parent representative, a school psychologist, a school nurse, teaching staff) who could co‐ordinate and successfully sustain the antibullying initiative. Each committee was provided with a 4‐h training, designed to build members' capacity to address bullying. Each member was provided with a specific strategy manual. The manual was a step‐by‐step guide on how to implement the antibullying initiative. It included among others the Pikas “Method of Shared Concern” and the “No Blame” approach (Cross et al.,  2011 ; Pikas,  2002 ).

With regard to the family intervention component, this included home activities linked to each classroom‐learning activity. Parents were also provided with 16 skills‐based newsletter items (eight for each year of the intervention) that aimed to provide research information on bullying as well as advice to parents on what to do if their child was a perpetrator or a victim of bullying behavior.

Moving on to the Grade 4 and 5 classroom curricula, the Friendly Schools curriculum consisted of nine learning activities per year. The curriculum was offered by trained teachers in three blocks of three 60‐min lessons, over a three‐school‐term period. The learning activities aimed to promote awareness of what was bullying behavior; to help students to become assertive and talk about bullying with teachers and parents; and to promote peer and adult discouragement of bullying behavior.

Finally, the Friendly Schools program offered manuals to teachers. The teacher manuals were designed to be entirely self‐contained so as to maximize the likelihood of teacher implementation. Friendly Schools project staff also provided teacher training (a 6‐h course) for all intervention teachers.

6.27. *Granada antibullying program

This program was a pilot antibullying program with the following aims: (a) to establish children's involvement in bullying within different participant roles/categories; (b) to reduce the number of students involved in the phenomenon as bullies, victims and bully‐victims; (c) to increase the number of students who are categorized as noninvolved in bullying, through the enhancement of prosocial skills; and (d) to identify the threats to fidelity of the program and establish the validity of the pilot program with the possibility of replicating it in future (Martin et al.,  2005 , p. 376). Forty‐nine sixth graders from one Spanish primary school in Granada participated in the program.

The program designers gathered information about the social, educational and economic background of the school, of the students' families and the community in general. That was done during 3 meetings/seminars of 3 h each. Parents, teachers and members of the educational team attended those meetings. Through these meetings, it was established that the program should target interpersonal relationships of the children. It was decided that the program would be curriculum‐based as part of the normal program of the school. It was decided that the program would be implemented by one of the researchers because the teachers did not have enough qualifications to do it and because of lack of time and resources for teacher training. Parents and teachers were provided with information about bullying (a dossier/file) that they could use to discuss the problem of bullying with children. Also, teachers could attend the intervention program so that later they would be able to implement it by themselves. Parents were invited to attend some talks on bullying that would be given by the implementation team so that the program could be continued outside the school. The program was implemented for 5 months at the classroom level (30 sessions; 3 sessions per week with one tutor, i.e., one of the evaluators).

During the first 5 sessions, the tutor informed the children about peer bullying. Topics covered in the first 5 sessions involved issues such as concept of bullying, types of bullying, how to identify it, individual and group differences in bullying, and classroom rules against bullying. From the 6th to the 21st sessions, the program emphasis was on the emotional and social abilities of the children. Several topics were covered such as: identification and expression of emotions during bullying situations; communication abilities; ability to pose questions; ability of children to give and receive complements and complaints; ability to say no in life; ability to ask for a change of behavior; and ability to solve interpersonal problems. From the 17th to the 21st sessions, the program placed emphasis on mediation.

From the 22nd to the 25th sessions, the program emphasis was on human rights. Several topics were covered such as: freedom and equality, respect of private life, respect for other people's belongings, and respect for others' opinions. Similarly, from the 26th to 30th sessions, the emphasis was on moral education. During the whole program (sessions 1–30), there was also an emphasis on the inhibition of impulsivity and enhancement of reflexivity. For the enhancement of reflexivity, the program designers used a specific program called “Programa de Intervencion para Aumentar la Attention y la Reflixividad” [PIAAR] developed by Gargallo (2000) (see Martin et al.,  2005 , p. 378). This focuses on cognitive techniques that aim to inhibit impulsivity and enhance self‐control. The program also included role‐playing, peer mediation, guided discussion, brainstorming, and drawings.

The authors acknowledge several problems with the implementation of the program such as: little involvement by parents and teachers; implementation of the program lessons during recess time or during the physical education program; lack of time to cover all the topics; no second follow‐up because of difficulties of following the children; problems with the size and selection of the sample; the instrument they used; and possible contamination of results because of the way they categorized the children (Martin et al.,  2005 , p. 382). These pitfalls could easily be spotted. For example, the evaluators indicate that they implemented the program with the most aggressive sixth graders who had the worst interpersonal problems (Martin et al.,  2005 , p. 738). This made it difficult to know whether any changes in bullying in the experimental condition were attributable to the effectiveness of the program or to regression to the mean. Also, even though they distributed a self‐report questionnaire, they categorized children based on those questionnaires only after teachers' suggestions.

6.28. *Greek antibullying program (1)

The Greek antibullying initiative was a 4‐week intervention program that aimed to minimize both bullying and victimization. The conceptual framework of the Greek antibullying program was based on the theoretical model proposed by Salmivalli in 1999 (Andreou et al.,  2007 , p. 696), according to which changing an individual's behavior (e.g., the bully's behavior) entailed motivating not only the particular person but also the rest of the group members (participant roles' approach).

The program was embedded within the wider curriculum of the fourth‐, fifth‐, and sixth‐grade classrooms and consisted of eight instructional hours, each hour corresponding to one curricular activity. The curricular activities were presented to students by their classroom teachers who received training beforehand. The teacher training consisted of five 4‐h meetings and aimed to increase awareness of the bullying problem and its seriousness as well as to raise teachers' self‐efficacy in implementing the program (Andreou et al.,  2007 , p. 697).

The Greek antibullying curriculum was divided into three parts in accordance with the three main theoretical axes proposed by Salmivalli in 1999, namely: (1) awareness‐raising; (2) self‐reflection; and (3) commitment to new behaviors (Andreou et al.,  2007 , pp. 697–698).

In line with the first axis (awareness‐raising), small‐group and whole‐class discussions were conducted (over three instructional hours) that aimed to increase students' awareness of the bullying problem. Corresponding materials included a real snap‐shot from the playground, a story entitled “A new friend” and students' own drawings. In line with the second theoretical axis (self‐reflection), two instructional hours involving classroom discussions were conducted. These discussions placed emphasis on the participant roles that students took in the bullying process. Corresponding materials involved each students' completion of open‐ended sentences. Through this activity students were intended to reflect on critical issues around the causes, benefits, feelings, and consequences of adopting different roles. In line with the final axis (commitment to new behaviors), three instructional hours of small‐group and whole‐class discussions were conducted concerning different ways of approaching or solving the peer‐conflict situation and the formulation of class rules. Corresponding materials involved an open‐ended comic‐strip for group completion to find a solution to the bullying situation presented in the relevant story.

6.29. Greek antibullying program (2)

This antibullying program was implemented in Greek elementary schools during the academic year 2011/2012 (Tsiantis et al.,  2013 ). The school‐based program incorporated many elements and was implemented by teachers. Participating teachers attended a 2‐day training seminar before implementation began. A teacher's manual (Tsiantis,  2011 ) was also provided and outlined the detailed and systematic procedures involved in the intervention. Throughout the program teachers were provided with additional support from two mental health professionals whom acted as program co‐ordinators.

The program comprised of 11 weekly workshops that were implemented for two 45‐min class periods (90‐min in total). Class activities included group discussions, games and the formation and signing of class antibullying rules (Tsiantis et al.,  2013 ). Parent meetings were also organized to increase parent participation with the intervention. The first meeting provided parents with information about the intervention program and bullying issues. During the second parent session, students presented the achievements they had made during the intervention.

6.30. Inclusive

The INCLUSIVE program is a whole‐school restorative approach to bullying prevention and intervention (Bonnell et al.,  2015 ). The program involves creating an “action group” within each participating school in order to combat bullying. These groups are comprised of a minimum of six students and six members of staff, with at least one representative from senior management, teaching, support, and pastoral staff. Each action group is appointed an external expert facilitator for the duration of the intervention. It is the facilitators' role to provide ongoing support and training to each member of the action group. Action groups were required to meet regularly throughout the intervention year, approximately once every half term.

The INCLUSIVE intervention was designed to include several core standardized intervention components, including staff training in restorative practices, and a student social and emotional skills curriculum. However, the program also allows for schools to adapt the intervention according to school‐specific needs. These needs were established using a needs assessment survey distributed to year 8 students prior to commencement of the intervention. This survey aimed to establish student views on bullying and aggression in their schools, while providing information regarding school engagement and connectedness, perceptions of safety/risks, social support and social skills, relationships, and teaching in personal, social and health (PSHE) classes. Results of the needs assessment survey were then employed by the action group to tailor the INCLUSIVE intervention to target specific needs. The action groups also utilized this information to review and improve schools' existing policies, procedures and schemes (e.g., peer mediation and “buddying” schemes).

In relation to the core components of the INCLUSIVE intervention, all school staff were provided with introductory training in restorative practices by their affiliated expert facilitator. A minimum of twenty school staff were also required to attend intensive training provided by a specialist training provider. Restorative practices, such as “Circle Time,” were taught to staff to improve school climate and student‐staff communication. This technique involves teachers and staff sitting together in a circle discussing various emotional, social, and curricular issues. Each member of the circle is considered a valued contributor, and all inputs are treated equally. Circle time aims to support student communication and promote positive relationships. Another restorative technique used in the INCLUSIVE program was “formal conferencing,” which aimed to deal with serious bullying and aggressive incidents directly. Formal conferencing involves bringing together teachers, parents and students to establish appropriate punishment and ways in which the harm caused can be repaired. This approach emphasizes a nonjudgmental and inclusive environment so that both victims and perpetrators of bullying and/or aggression are involved.

Year 8 students also completed 5–10 h of social and emotional skills training throughout the process of the INCLUSIVE intervention. These lessons were based on the Gatehouse Project curriculum and could be delivered as either stand‐alone modules or integrated into existing academic curriculums. Modules covered included: (1) Establishing respectful relationships; (2) Emotion management; (3) Understanding and creating trusting relationships; (4) Exploring others' needs and avoiding conflict; and (5) Maintaining and repairing relationships.

6.31. *KiVa

The name of this project is an acronym of the expression “Kiusaamista Vastaan” which means “against bullying.” The word “kiva” in Finnish means “nice” and this is why this acronym was chosen for the specific antibullying initiative in Finland. Regarding the overall perspective of the program, the KiVa project included a universal and an indicated intervention (Kärnä et al.,  2011a ,  2011b ,  2013 ; Nocentini & Menesini, 2016; Salmivalli et al., 2007). The universal intervention referred to efforts made to influence the group norms while the indicated intervention referred to the way in which specific cases were handled in schools through individual and group discussions between the teacher and the students involved (Salmivalli et al., 2007, p. 6).

The KiVa program included a large variety of concrete materials for students, teachers, and parents. It also utilized the Internet and virtual learning environments (e.g., computer games against bullying) aiming in this way to enhance students' attitudes against bullying. Also, students received their own personal user ID, which they could use as a password before the completion of each web‐based questionnaire on bullying. KiVa included 20‐h student lessons, which were carried out by student teachers. The lessons involved discussions, group work, short films about bullying, and role‐playing exercises. After each lesson, a class rule was adopted, based on the central theme of the lesson.

A unique feature of the KiVa program was the use of an antibullying computer game. The game involved five levels and the teacher always activated the next level of the game after the relevant lesson was completed. Students were able to begin using the game after the third lesson; the second level of the program was played after the fifth lesson, and so on until the end of the school year. Each level of the computer game included three components that were named as “I know,” “I can,” and “I do.” In the first component, students were informed about basic facts on bullying. In the second component, the “I can”‐component, students moved around in the virtual school and faced different challenging bullying incidents. Finally, the third component was used to encourage students to make use of their knowledge and skills in real life situations.

Another important element of the KiVa project was the teacher training. Teachers were also provided with vests that they could use during playtime while supervising the school yard. This simple technique aimed to enhance teachers' visibility in the schoolyard and to signal that bullying was taken seriously in the school. Also, all teachers carrying out the KiVa program could seek advice from a web‐based discussion forum, where they could share experiences and ideas about bullying with other colleagues.

Within the school framework, the program also facilitated the use of a peer support group for victims of bullying. The classroom teacher was expected to arrange a group with 2–4 classmates—those who were pro‐social and had high status in the class—who were expected to provide support to victimized students, thus sustaining healthy peer relationships. An interesting element in the KiVa program is that it incorporated both punitive and nonblame approaches when dealing with perpetrators of bullying. Half of the school teams were instructed to use more punitive approaches (e.g., what you have done is wrong and it has to stop right now) while the rest of the school teams were instructed to use no‐blame approaches in their discussions with children (e.g., “your classmate is also having a hard time and this is why he behaves like that; what could we do to help him?”). There was also co‐operative group work among experts when dealing with children involved in bullying.

Finally, the KiVa program involved parents. A parents' guide was sent to the home and provided information about bullying and advice on how parents could be involved to reduce this problem. Information nights for parents were also organized and provided.

6.32. Lead Peace Intervention

The Lead Peace intervention is based on a resiliency conceptual framework (Resnik,  2000 ), thus, aims to reduce youth problem behaviors using an assets‐based approach (Harpin,  2011 ; Sieving & Widome,  2008 ). The intervention was developed as a school‐based “service learning and health education” program to reduce risk of violence and school failure in middle school students (Sieving, 2006). Developed from the Points of Light Youth Leadership curriculum for 9th to 12th grade students (Sieving, 2006), the program was adapted for use with Grade 6–8 students (Harpin,  2011 ).

The core curriculum targets factors on three levels: (1) environmental (e.g., adult resources and supports, family norms and behaviors, peer norms and behaviors, school/community opportunities and social connectedness); (2) personal (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, perceived norms, emotional distress); and (3) behavioral (e.g., social and emotional skills, coping behaviors, school performance). The program aims to reduce risky health and social behaviors (e.g., interpersonal aggression, physical fighting, bullying) in order to promote positive and reduce risky behaviors. The curriculum is implemented for 3 years, and can be delivered in two “doses”: (1) Lead Peace program (basic)—includes 15–20 intervention lessons each year; or (2) Lead Peace plus program—includes 30 intervention lessons, 15–20 additional community service hours, and health education and family outreach activities.

6.33. Lunch Buddy Mentoring program

The Lunch Buddy mentoring program was a school‐based antibullying program that aimed to reduce bullying victimization in elementary school children (Elledge et al.,  2010 ). The program was based on previous research that suggests youth mentoring can be utilized as an effective prevention technique (Dortch, 2000). In comparison to peer‐mentoring antibullying program, the Lunch Buddy program employed college student mentors based on prior success of college student mentoring aggressive children (Cavell & Hughes,  2000 ).

Mentors were provided with training prior to implementation of the program and participated in weekly meetings throughout the program. Children were identified as potential participants using a self‐ and teacher‐report victimization index. The self‐report School Experiences Questionnaire (Kochenderfer & Ladd,  2000 ) and teacher ratings of child victimization due to physical, verbal and relational aggressive were combined to create this index. School principals also collaborated with counselors to identify potentially suitable candidates. Eligible participants were then matched with same‐sex college student mentors, based on the availability of mentors during the mentees scheduled lunchtimes. Mentors visited the mentees twice a week, over the course of 5–6 months. During these visits mentors were required to sit with their mentee and their peers during lunchtime. Each mentor was also required to complete a log sheet after each visit.

6.34. Media Heroes

Chaux et al. ( 2016 ) evaluated the effectiveness of the cyberbullying prevention program “Media Heroes” [ Medienhelden ] on reports of traditional school bullying. The Media Heroes program is based theoretically on the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen,  1991 ) and the social context of participant roles in bullying (Salmivalli,  2010 ). The program aims to reduce cyberbullying perpetration by enhancing empathy, increasing awareness and knowledge about what constitutes cyberbullying, the safety risks associated with Internet activity, and by providing assertive and useful methods in which bystanders can intervene in cyberbullying (Chaux et al.,  2016 ).

There are two versions of Media Heroes: (1) a short version implemented over four 90‐min lessons that take place in one school day; and (2) a long version that is implemented over 15‐weekly 45‐min lessons (Schultze‐Krumbholz et al.,  2012 ). Intervention activities include, role‐playing, class debates, news and film content, group learning and student‐parent presentations (Chaux et al.,  2016 ). Measures of both traditional‐ and cyber‐bullying were implemented in this evaluation, due to the significant overlap in the prevalence of these behaviors.

6.35. NoTrap!

Noncadiamointrappola (Let's Not Fall into a Trap), or NoTrap!, is a web‐based antibullying program that has been developed, implemented and refined over several studies (Menesini et al.,  2012 ; Palladino et al.,  2012 ,  2016 ). Initially implemented in two Italian schools in 2008, the program involves students actively engaging in the development of a website promoting antibullying (Menesini et al.,  2012 ). A selected number of students per school are provided with training and enroll as online peer‐educators. These students acted as online moderators of an antibullying forum, regulating discussion threads and responding to users' questions and concerns (Menesini et al.,  2012 ). In addition, peer‐educators also conducted face‐to‐face awareness raising workshops and meetings with their classmates, to highlight the key issues surrounding traditional‐ and cyber‐bullying (Palladino et al.,  2016 ).

Subsequent editions of the NoTrap! program incorporated additional elements based on findings from previous evaluations. For example, Palladino et al. ( 2012 ) placed more emphasis on: (1) victims' roles and victim support, (2) involving bystanders, (3) greater involvement of teachers in antibullying activities, and (3) creation of a Facebook group to supplement online materials. The third revision of the NoTrap! program incorporated standardization of the face‐to‐face antibullying activities led by peer educators (Palladino et al.,  2016 ). New peer‐led activities involved group work that targeted empathy and problem‐solving skills (Palladino et al.,  2016 ).

6.36. *Olweus Bullying Prevention Program

The OBPP was a multilevel program aiming at targeting the individual, the school, the classroom and the community level. Apart from marked mass‐media publicity, the program started with a 1‐day school conference during which the problem of bullying was addressed between school staff, students, and parents. This signaled the formal commencement of the intervention. Two different types of materials were produced: a handbook or manual for teachers (entitled “Olweus” core program against bullying and antisocial behavior') and a folder with information for parents and families. The program also included: (1) CD‐program that was used for assessing and analyzing the data obtained at the pre‐test period, so that school‐specific interventions could then be implemented; (2) a video on bullying; (3) the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire and (4) the book “Bullying at school: what we know and what we can do.”

The antibullying measures mainly targeted three different levels of intervention: the school, the classroom and the individual. At the school level, the intervention included:

• Meetings among teachers to discuss ways of improving peer‐relations; staff discussion groups.
• Parent/teacher meetings to discuss the issue of bullying.
• Increased supervision during recess and lunchtime.
• Improvement of playground facilities so that children have better places to play during recess time.
• Questionnaire surveys.
• The formation of a coordinating group.

At the classroom level the intervention included:

• Students were given information about the issue of bullying and were actively involved in devising class rules against bullying.
• Classroom activities for students included role‐playing situations that could help students learn how to deal better with bullying.
• Class rules against bullying.
• Class meetings with students.
• Meetings with the parents of the class.

At the individual level the intervention included:

• Talks with bullies and their parents and enforcement of nonhostile, nonphysical sanctions.
• Talks with victims, providing support and providing assertiveness skills training to help them learn how to successfully deal with bullying; also, talks with the parents of victims.
• Talks with children not involved to make them become effective helpers.

An interesting feature of the OBPP is that it offered guided information about what schools should do at both the intervention and the maintenance period. The Olweus program demands significant commitment from the school during the 'introductory period' which covers a period of about 18 months. Later the methodology acquired by the staff and the routines decided by the school may be maintained using less resources … Yet, even for the maintenance period, the program offers a point by point description of what the school should do to continue its work against bullying in accordance with Olweus methodology (Olweus, 2004c, p. 1). Also, at the school level training was offered to the whole school staff, with additional training provided to the coordinators and key personnel. These were responsible for coordinating the overall antibullying initiative in their school. The program also included cooperation among experts and teachers (e.g., psychologists) who worked with children involved in bullying.

6.37. Positive Action program

The Positive Action Program is a generalized school‐based “well‐being” program (Lewis et al.,  2013 ). The program targets both distal (e.g., school climate and teacher classroom management) and proximal (e.g., students' thoughts, feelings, and self‐efficacy) facets are targeted in order to impact a range of health‐ and behavioral‐related outcomes (Li et al.,  2011 ). The program is based on three core elements.

First, the Positive Action philosophy. Based on the theory of self‐concept (Combs,  1962 ; Purkey,  1970 ; Purkey & Novak,  1996 ) and a Positive Psychology (Frederickson, 2000; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi,  2000 ) approach, the philosophy emphasizes positive feelings about the self, to encourage positive behaviors toward others (Flay & Allerd,  2010 ). Second, the Thoughts‐Actions‐Feelings Circle concept is used throughout the program to illustrate the reinforcing cycle of thoughts, feelings and actions. This is delivered to outline that positive thoughts lead to positive actions, positive actions in turn lead to positive feelings, which then reinforce positive thoughts. Third, a strict six‐unit curriculum that involves daily lessons, interactive learning and social‐emotional skill development.

The PA curriculum is designed to be adapted for kindergarten to Grade 12 students, and is based on six key concepts: (1) self‐concept; (2) social and emotional positive actions for managing oneself responsibly; (3) positive actions relating to a healthy body and mind; (4) honesty with oneself; (5) getting along with others; and (6) continuous self‐improvement (Lewis et al.,  2013 ). The intervention program also involves teacher, parent/family and community training. Schools implementing the PA program receive support from developers throughout implementation by training, manuals, school‐wide climate development, counselors, family classes, and individual consultations for staff with a PA implementation coordinator.

6.38. Preventure and Adventure CBT

The Preventure and Adventure intervention programs were part of two 2 year longitudinal projects that targeted adolescent alcohol use and bullying behaviors (Topper,  2011 ). Intervention components were primarily personality‐targeted cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for “high risk” students. Participants were screened prior to taking part in the intervention for four individual personality domains: (1) hopelessness; (2) anxiety‐sensitivity; (3) sensation seeking; and (4) impulsivity. Students who were classified as being “high risk” on any of the four domains were invited to participate, and assigned to one of four potential intervention workshops. These intervention sessions were CBT‐based and were aimed at each of the four personality domains. Thus, a student who scored highly on the impulsivity measure was assigned to the impulsivity‐focused CBT session. For participants that scored above the mean on multiple measures, they were assigned to the session that corresponded to the personality domain that they deviated the most from standardized scores.

High risk students in each school were randomly assigned to either the intervention or control condition, as were “low risk” students, for comparison. The Preventure study took place between 2005 and 2007, and either a chartered counseling psychology, an experienced special needs teacher, or a master‐level research assistant implemented intervention workshops. In comparison, the Adventure study took place between 2007 and 2009, and although the intervention sessions followed the same procedure, they were implemented by trained teachers in each school.

6.39. *Pro‐ACT+E program

Pro‐ACT+E was a universal, multidimensional program that aimed to prevent bullying in secondary schools (Sprober et al., 2006). It involved a cognitive‐behavioral approach to the problem of bullying and victimization by building up prosocial behavior. The program was universal: it did not involve specific work with perpetrators or victims of bullying. However, it included both teacher and parent training and a 2‐h classroom discussion with students about violence problems. The program offered curriculum materials that aimed to increase awareness in relation to the problem of bullying and placed emphasis on specific issues such as classroom management and classroom rules against bullying.

6.40. *Progetto Pontassieve

The program was delivered in a period of 3 years, and it consisted of two main parts. During the 1st two years it was delivered more at the school level whereas the 3rd year was more at the class and individual level (Ciucci & Smorti,  1998 ). During the 1st year a training course for teachers took place addressing psychosocial risks for children and bully‐victim problems. At the end of the training, a study was conducted to reveal how serious was the problem of bullying and what were its characteristics. The 2nd year of the intervention included a counseling service for each individual who was affected by bullying.

The intervention took place in the 3rd year and was based on the use of two different methods: Quality Circles, where pupils had to cooperate to find practical solutions to their problems, with the use of the Interpersonal Process Recall which consisted of the recording of one Quality Circle and discussion about it. The other method used was Role Playing conducted in small groups with subsequent class discussions, which helped students to examine possible strategies to face and overtake bullying problems. The aims of both of these methods were to make students aware that they could intervene in an efficient way to reduce bullying.

6.41. *Project Ploughshares for Peace

Project Ploughshares Puppets for Peace (P4 program) was an antibullying program that aimed to educate elementary school students about bullying and conflict resolution (Beran & Shapiro,  2005 , p. 703). The P4 program used puppets and a 30‐min script. Using three‐feet, hand‐and‐rod puppets, two puppeteers enacted a story that involved direct and indirect bullying, as well as a successful resolution to this scenario. These behaviors occurred among two female puppets and a male puppet friend.

After watching the play, students were invited to identify the bullying behaviors. During the discussion, four main strategies—presented as “4 Footsteps”—to deal with bullying were suggested to pupils: (1) ignore, (2) say stop, (3) walk away, and (4) get help. The show took approximately 45 min and aimed to increase children's awareness about which behaviors could be categorized as bullying and to show various strategies that children who were bullied and/or who witnessed bullying could use to discourage it (Beran & Shapiro,  2005 , p. 703).

6.42. Rational Emotive Behavioral Education (REBE) and ViSC

Trip et al. ( 2015 ) implemented a dual program consisting of REBE (Trip & Bora,  2010 ) and ViSC social competence (Strohmeier et al.,  2012 ) elements. These components were combined to address both social and emotional factors involved in bullying and positive youth development (PYD). This program approaches bullying from a sociological perspective, including factors on the individual, family, peer, classroom, and school levels (Espelage & Horne,  2008 ; Swearer & Espelage,  2011 ).

ViSC social competence program is a systemic approach to antibullying that targets students, teachers and parents (Strohmeier et al.,  2012 ). Implemented by teachers in the classroom, the program comprises several intervention units that aim to: (1) foster empathy and perspective training, (2) enhance responsibility, and (3) improve students' behavioral responses to bullying (Trip et al.,  2015 , p. 733).

REBE elements employed by Trip et al. ( 2015 ) on the other hand, target specific elements of aggression that are lacking in the ViSC units. Based on the theory of Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (Ellis,  1962 ), the REBE elements of the intervention program target the difference between desire and reality (Trip & Bora,  2010 ) and anger. The REBE program activities target specific elements of anger, specifically, anger triggers, personal experiences of anger and the consequences of anger (Trip et al.,  2015 ).

6.43. Restorative Whole‐school Approach (RWsA)

The RWsA (Hopkins,  2004 ; Morrison,  2002 ) was a school‐based antibullying initiative that employs a restorative justice inspired philosophy. Hence, the program focuses on creating a positive school environment to prevent bullying in the long‐term, rather than a short‐term disciplinary and punishment approach (Wong et al.,  2011 ). The program had three core goals: (1) to create a positive and harmonious school learning environment; (2) implement an interactive classroom curriculum; and (3) encourage an effective partnership between teachers, students, parents and relevant professionals.

A whole‐school antibullying nonpunitive ethos and policy is implemented as the core of the intervention (Wong et al.,  2011 ). This policy aims to establish a positive school environment in order to combat bullying‐related risk factors. The curriculum lessons incorporated elements on various issues, including, empathy, assertiveness, coping, problem‐solving, and conflict resolution.

6.44. Resourceful Adolescent Program (RAP)

The RAP is a classroom‐based CBT intervention designed for adolescents aged 12–15 years of age (Stallard et al.,  2013 ). The program is a depression prevention program, however, bullying problems were included as secondary outcomes. The program incorporates a detailed manual and student workbooks, and was implemented over nine sessions, of approximately 50–60 min each. The core components include: psycho‐education, helpful thinking, identifying personal strengths, keeping calm, problem solving, support networks, and keeping the peace. The program was designed to flexible and adaptable to participating schools' varying busy timetables.

6.45. *S.S. Grin

The Social Skills Group Intervention (S.S. GRIN) was a school‐based program that aimed to help children enhance their social skills. S.S. GRIN was designed as a social‐skills training intervention for peer‐rejected, victimized, and socially anxious children. It could be applied to an array of problems that are social in nature (e.g., aggression, low self‐esteem, depression, social anxiety, social withdrawal) not just bullying (DeRosier & Marcus,  2005 , p. 140). The authors argued that the program went beyond the most common social‐skills training (De Rosier & Marcus, 2005, p. 141) by emphasizing the cognitive aspects of relations and emotions. That is, children were not only taught prosocial skills, but they were also taught, on the cognitive level, how to identify negative perceptions and behaviors in an effort to help children to regulate their own emotions as well as enhance their coping skills.

Overall, the program was a combination of social‐learning and cognitive‐behavioral techniques, used to help children build social skills and positive relationships with peers. It was a highly structured, manualized program (DeRosier,  2004 , p. 197) with a number of sessions containing scripts and activities to undertake. Each session included didactic instruction combined with active practice such as role‐playing, modeling and hands‐on activities (De Rosier, 2004, p. 197). The children participated in group sessions for eight consecutive weeks. Each session lasted approximately an hour. The groups were led by each school's counselor and an intern, who were trained and supervised by one of the program instructors (De Rosier & Marcus, 2005, p. 143).

6.46. School‐based Drama program

This school‐based antibullying program was based on drama (Owens & Barber,  1998 ) and social cognitive theories (Bandura,  1978 ). The main aim of this project was to design and implement a drama‐based program to improve social relationships and social/emotional well‐being in children, which in turn may help to reduce bullying (Joronen et al.,  2011 ). Targeted concepts included: empathy; social competence; student‐teacher interaction; child–parent interaction; and recognition of values/emotions.

This program was developed by the combined efforts of researchers, drama experts and teachers. It was implemented in‐class by trained teachers and school nurses over a period of 6 months. Teachers and school nurses attended a 2‐day seminar and received two drama handbooks, however, there was no manual or fixed program outline provided. Support was provided through email communication between teachers and researchers for the duration of program implementation. Teachers conducted one drama session per month with their class. These sessions covered a variety of topics, including, bullying, friendship, loss of a friend, supporting a bullied peer, tolerance, and child abuse.

6.47. School‐wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)

SWPBIS was a universal behavioral intervention program that targets school‐level factors in order to improve school climate and promote positive student and staff behaviors (Waasdorp et al.,  2012 ). Instead of following a specific antibullying curriculum, SWPBIS aimed to reduce bullying by targeting schools' discipline and behavioral management strategies. A SWPBIS team in each school organized and facilitated the intervention implementation.

These teams were responsible for developing a set of “positive expectations” for the school. These were a number of statements that outlined what the school expected in relation to student and staff behavior, for example, “be responsible, respectful, and ready to learn” (Waasdorp et al.,  2012 , p. 150). Posters highlighting the expectation statements were then displayed all around participating schools, both in classrooms and outside of classrooms, and are positively reinforced using reward systems. Furthermore, data from student surveys and discipline referrals were employed throughout the intervention to inform teachers of potential bullying “hot spots” that require increased supervision and monitoring. School staff also received training on classroom management and how to respond consistently and effectively to bullying. Additionally, students identified as being “high risk” or vulnerable to bullying behaviors or victimization were provided with selective intensive intervention.

6.48. School bus antibullying intervention

This intervention program was a universal antibullying program designed to reduce the prevalence of bullying behaviors on school buses (Krueger,  2010 ). The program was purposefully developed and utilizes materials and content from the “Take a Stand, Lend a Hand, Stop Bullying Now!” tools that are available free of charge.

The intervention was implemented with elementary school children over five consecutive days, during the final 20‐min of the school day. Lessons were delivered by the school's social worker and principal to two groups (kindergarten to 2nd grade students, and 3rd to 5th grade students) of participants. The program followed this format from days 2–5, however, on day 1, all participants completed the introductory lesson together. The school‐bus antibullying program primarily utilized DVD materials from the “Take a Stand” content. These video clips depicted cartoon characters engaging in different bullying scenarios.

On day 1 (i.e., the introductory lesson) an overview of school bullying and related issues, including bystander intervention, was provided to participants. The associated DVD clip depicted a male character physically bullying another child in the playground while other students watched. Participants then discussed the clip in groups, and were introduced to the “Three Steps to Stop Bullying Chart.” This technique involves three steps, Stop, Help , and Tell , that bystanders can take if they witness bullying.

On each subsequent day, a new DVD clip was shown to participants and the Stop, Help , and Tell concepts were revisited. The school's social worker or principal led discussion groups by posing questions to the students concerning the feelings and emotions experienced by the victim of bullying, potential coping strategies that the victim could use, and possible bystander behaviors. Participants also shared their previous experiences with similar situations. Furthermore, using the Stop, Help , and Tell paradigm, participants brainstormed potential ways to tell a bully to stop behaving in a certain manner, ways to help the victim and appropriate trusted adults that they can tell about the situation.

6.49. Second Step

The Second Step: Student Success Through Prevention is a middle school Social‐Emotional Learning (SEL) program that aims to reduce bullying, peer victimization, physical aggression, homophobic name‐calling and sexual violence (Espelage et al.,  2013 ,  2015 ). The intervention curriculum is taught in‐class by trained teachers. Lessons are interactive and engaging, requiring students to take part in whole‐class, small group and individual work. A take home task is also given after each lesson to reinforce skills learned. DVDs are also used to accompany and enrich lesson content.

The 6th grade Second Step curriculum involves 15 weekly lessons on various social and emotional skills and bullying‐related topics. The following outlines the curriculum: (1) empathy and communication—five lessons; (2) bullying—two lessons; (3) emotion regulation (e.g., coping with stress)—three lessons; (4) problem‐solving—two lessons; and (5) substance abuse prevention—four lessons.

Each lesson has clearly outlined learning objectives to reduce problem behaviors and increase prosocial behaviors. For example, lessons on bullying target the peer context by increasing knowledge, improving attitudes, and encouraging bystander intervention in order to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization. Students are educated about the differences between types of bullying, importance and responsibilities of bystanders in preventing bullying and a number of positive bystander behaviors are modeled. The 7th grade Second Step curriculum involves a similar lesson structure, with some slight changes. The intervention is delivered over 13 weekly lessons, and cyber‐bullying and sexual harassment issues are incorporated into bullying modules.

6.50. Shared Concern

Wurf ( 2012 ) assessed the effectiveness of the whole‐school approach to bullying intervention and prevention, with a particular emphasis on Pikas' ( 2002 ) nonpunitive method of shared concern. The Pikas method of Shared Concern is a teacher, or counselor, implemented intervention, that is divided into five key stages. First, the intervener identifies the students involved in bullying and talks with them individually. These discussions aim to provide nonpunitive and constructive options for both bullies and victims (Wurf,  2012 ). The second and third stages involve providing empathy and ongoing support to the victims of bullying. Finally, the fourth stage incorporates a mediation session between bullies and victim(s). A conflict resolution approach to prevent bullying is agreed upon and implemented by all involved. The fifth and final stage occurs during the follow‐up period, whereby the teacher or counselor monitors the involved students to ensure that the bullying has stopped.

6.51. *Short Intensive Intervention in Czechoslovakia

The antibullying intervention in Czechoslovakia was inspired by the OBPP and borrowed elements from it, such as the Olweus videocassette on bullying (Rican et al.,  1996 , p. 399). The Olweus bullying questionnaire was used to measure several aspects of bullying within the schools. A peer nomination technique was also used to identify bully and victim scores. The relevant results from both measurement scales were presented to teachers in the intervention schools to increase awareness of the problem of bullying. The program researchers discussed with the teachers “possibilities of an individual approach to the bullies as well as to the victims” (Rican et al.,  1996 , p. 399).

As another intervention element, teachers were instructed to introduce relevant ethical aspects into the curriculum where possible: the ideal of knighthood was suggested for history classes and the ideal of consideration for the weak was introduced in sentences used for dictation and analysis (Rican et al.,  1996 , p. 400). Another element of the intervention involved the use of a method called “class charter.” Specifically, children were asked to indicate how they would like their teachers and other classmates to behave toward them as well as how students should behave toward teachers and among themselves. The final aim of this classroom activity was the construction of a set of rules and principles, which was then signed by all pupils in the classroom and placed there in a visible position. Finally, the Olweus video‐cassette on bullying was shown to children and was used as a means of promoting the antibullying idea in the school.

6.52. *Short Video Intervention

This antibullying strategy, involved a single viewing of an antibullying video, entitled Sticks and Stones, and aimed to examine its effects on secondary school students' views of, and involvement in, bullying. The program aimed to examine both attitudes toward bullying and the actual behavior since “it would not be unreasonable to propose that these attitudes will influence actual behavior” (Boulton & Flemington,  1996 , p. 334). The program involved only one school that had no prior antibullying policy.

The video presented pupils (either in groups or on their own) talking about bullying, their views about this phenomenon and their personal experiences of bullying. The video also involved a number of bullying scenes (see Boulton & Flemington,  1996 , p. 337 for examples).

6.53. Social and Emotional Training (SET) intervention

This intervention program was a school‐based SET mental health program for Swedish school children (Kimber et al.,  2008 ). The SET program was primarily focused on mental health, but also targeted other aspects of participants' lives, such as bullying. Both internalizing and externalizing aspects of child mental health are addressed.

Trained teachers delivered the program over the course of two academic years. Intensity of program implementation varied according to the age of students. Junior students (i.e., grades 1–5) received the program in 45‐min sessions twice a week, while senior students (i.e., grades 6–9) completed one 45‐min session per week. Program developers provided each participating teacher with detail manuals for implementing the program with each grade and grade‐specific student workbooks. Role‐playing and modeling tasks covered many themes, including: social problem solving; conflict management; dealing with strong emotions; and resisting peer pressure. Teachers were also supervised once a month during the 1st year of implementation, and students were encouraged to practice skills both at school and at home.

6.54. Social Norms Project

Lishak ( 2011 ) implemented an antibullying program based on social norms theory (Perkins,  2003 ) with middle school students. The program was implemented over a period of 12 weeks and was developed based on student responses to an anonymous web‐based survey and student discipline and suspension reports (Lishak,  2011 ). Student surveys collected information regarding perceptions of bullying in the school and results were then relayed to participants via weekly lessons, assemblies, posters, and media content throughout the school. Data from school discipline, suspension and visitation logs were collated to estimate the prevalence of bullying and school violence.

6.55. *Social Skills Training (STT) program

STT was a program specifically designed to support “chronic victims” of bullying (Fox & Boulton,  2003 , p. 237). The general aim of the program was to help children improve their social skills, therefore reducing a child's individual risk of victimization (Fox & Boulton, 2003 , p. 234). The program involved an 8‐week course during which children learnt how to use both problem‐solving and relaxation skills, how to think positively, how to modify their nonverbal behavior and how to use some verbal strategies such as “fogging” and “mirroring” (Fox & Boulton,  2003 , p. 235).

During the program, victims of bullying were gathered in groups of five to ten and were exposed to the aims of the program for 1 h/week. Two trainers delivered the 1‐h sessions throughout the program. The 1st week was dedicated to children introducing each other and listening each other's problem. The next two sessions dealt with issues of friendship and aimed to help children form strong friendships (e.g., having conversations; asking to join in), while the fourth session dealt with issues of body language: teaching children how to modify their nonverbal behavior in a way that would protect them from being victimized. During the fifth session children learned how to be assertive while in the next two sessions children were taught how to deal with the bully. The eighth session signaled the end of the program.

6.56. *SPC and CAPSLE program

This evaluation compared the effects of two intervention packages with a treatment‐as‐usual condition (Fonagy et al.,  2009 ). Nine schools were randomly allocated to the two experimental and one control (treatment‐as‐usual) conditions after a stratified allocation procedure, which was used to stratify schools based on the percentage of low‐income students (indicated by students' free‐ and reduced‐lunch status). In the experimental conditions, the full intervention was offered for 2 years (the efficacy phase) with a limited 3rd year of intervention (the maintenance phase).

The first experimental condition involved a “School Psychiatric Consultation” (SPC), a manualized protocol that aims to address mental health issues of children with disruptive behavioral problems, internalizing problems, or poor academic performance. SPC was a school‐level intervention focused on individual children. Three child psychiatry residents, supervised biweekly by a senior child psychiatrist, delivered mental health consultation following the SPC manual for 4 h/week. The psychiatric residents attended weekly school resource meetings and consulted directly with teachers, parents and other school personnel, through classroom observations and meetings, providing 140 consultations for 65 students in year 1 and 97 consultations for 45 students in year 2.

The second experimental condition involved the implementation of CAPSLE (“Creating a Peaceful School Learning Environment”), a manualized psychodynamic approach addressing the cocreated relationship between bullies, victims and bystanders. In contrast to SPC, CAPSLE represents a whole‐school intervention approach. It aimed to modify the educational and disciplinary school climate. A CAPSLE team drawn from school staff in the pilot project led implementation in the two intervention years using a training manual. In year 1, teachers received a day of group training, students received nine sessions of self‐defense training, and the CAPSLE team consulted with school staff monthly. Year 2 started with a school‐wide half‐day refresher self‐defense course, and consultation continued with counselors, teachers and adult/peer mentor programs. In year 3 (the maintenance phase), self‐defense training continued as in year 2.

CAPSLE includes several antibullying materials that can be used by teachers such as a Teacher Discipline Manual (used in the teacher training), a Student Workbook, Buttons and Magnets and Patches (used as a way of reinforcing of desirable student behavior), Parent Warning Notes (notifying parents about specific problem behavior of the child) as well as antibullying videos that can be used during the physical education lessons (and videos that can be used by parents). CAPSLE also includes the Gentle Warrior Program, a 12‐week curriculum specifically designed for physical education teachers. For CAPSLE, intervention fidelity was assessed using a teacher self‐report measure that required teachers to state the frequency with which various CAPSLE program components were implemented.

6.57. Standard CBT and CBT plus media program

This intervention program combined elements of standardized CBT and DVD bullying‐related materials in order to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization among elementary school children (McLaughlin,  2009 ). The standardized CBT lessons were delivered by a trained counselor, and focused on bullying and aggression relation issues. Two experimental groups were employed, one of which received only the CBT lessons, and the other completed the CBT lessons and were shown the bullying DVDs.

The program was implemented over 4 weekly lessons that followed a strict outline. In week 1, the lesson focused on defining bullying, identifying bullying roles and different forms of bullying, and exploring the possible characteristics of bullies, victims, and bystanders. Week 2's lesson was concerned with establishing the consequences of bullying for all those involved, including the bully, victim and bystanders. Empathy for victims of bullying was also developed. Activities included creating feeling lists, and participating in role plays. Lesson three aimed to promote bystander intervention by developing awareness and knowledge of appropriate responses to bullying, suitable ways to intervene, and promoting assertiveness. Classes are taught using educational and informative posters. The final lesson, in week 4, aimed to outline the gender differences in bullying, why these occur, and ways to combat gender‐specific forms of bullying. In their classes, students establish class antibullying rules and are taught about the support available in school to stop bullying.

In addition, students in the CBT + media experimental group watched three DVDs that highlighted the issues outlined in the weekly lessons. The DVDs that were shown are as follow: (1) Let's Get Real , which shows young people talking about their personal experiences of bullying; (2) The Deepest Hurt , that depicts girls role‐playing various scenarios of relational aggression; and (3) The Broken Toy , a dramatization of the damage bullying can cause. Following the videos, students engaged in group discussions led by the counselor about the issues illustrated in each DVD.

6.58. *Stare bene a scuola: Progetto di prevensione del bullismo

This intervention was based on the curriculum activities and the whole school approach because it tried to involve all people in a school (Gini et al.,  2003 ). The program was delivered to 6 schools and included several activities. Teachers were first trained in 3 days on “cooperative learning” and in particular on the Jigsaw technique. Teachers then had an on‐going supervision once every 15 days. The intervention in the class lasted 4 months with two meetings a week. The intervention was directed toward the following areas: (1) awareness of the body and what it feels; (2) emotional awareness; and (3) bullying awareness. These areas were dealt with in each of the sessions, starting from the first one. For each thematic area, several activities were conducted and several methods were used.

6.59. Start Strong

“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships” was a school‐based curriculum focused teen dating‐violence prevention program (Williams et al.,  2015 ). The program was implemented over 2 years in four experimental schools (that implemented the program) and four comparison schools (that did not implement the program). Schools were matched based on: school size, percentage of students eligible for free school lunches, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. The effectiveness of the program was measured for outcomes that included the perpetration and victimization of teen dating‐violence, bullying and sexual harassment.

6.60. *Steps to Respect

The Step to Respect program aimed to tackle bullying by: (1) increasing staff awareness; (2) fostering socially responsible beliefs; and (3) teaching social‐emotional skills so as to promote healthy relationships (Frey et al.,  2005 , p. 481). The program included staff and family training manuals, a program guide and lesson‐based curricula for third‐ through sixth‐grade classrooms (Hirschstein & Frey,  2007 , p. 7).

Components at a whole school level consisted of an antibullying policy and procedures, staff training and parent meetings, all aiming at sharing understanding of bullying and its consequences and increasing adult awareness, monitoring, and involvement. At the classroom level, the proposed activities consisted of teaching friendship skills, emotion regulation skills, identifying types of bullying, teaching prevention strategies and peer group discussion. The aim was to improve peer relations and reduce the risk of victimization, assess level of safety and recognize, report and refuse bullying. At the individual level, students involved in bullying were approached and coached based on the “Four‐A Responses”: affirm behavior, ask questions, assess immediate safety and act.

The S to R training manual consisted of an instructional session for all school staff and two in‐depth training sessions for counselors, administrators, and teachers. There were also videos accompanying the program. With regard to staff training, there were two levels of training: all school staff received an overview of the program goals and principal aspects of the program (program guide). Teachers, counselors, and administrators received additional training in how to coach students involved in bullying, based on behavioral skills training, cooperative learning and role‐playing.

The student curriculum comprised skills and literature‐based lessons delivered by third‐ through sixth‐grade teachers during a 12–14‐week period. The intervention consisted of 10 semi‐scripted skills lessons with topics such as joining groups, distinguishing reporting from tattling and being a responsible bystander.

Finally, with regard to the parent intervention, administrators informed parents about the program and the school's antibullying policy and procedures. Parents could also benefit from other resources such as letters provided to them and newsletters describing whole‐school antibullying activities undertaken at school.

6.61. Strengths in Motion (SIM)

The SIM (Rawana et al.,  2011 ) program was a strength‐based whole school antibullying intervention. There were several components involved in the program, all of which centered around a strength‐based approach. This technique involves highlighting and enhancing individuals' strengths in order to develop positive mental health (Duckworth et al.,  2005 ). In the context of the present evaluation, Rawana et al. ( 2011 ) requested that each participating school allocated one room as a designated intervention resource room. In the first instance, this room acted as a “Good Start Centre” (p. 287) where new students to the school were provided with two half‐day orientation sessions prior to starting school. Part of these orientation sessions was individualized strength assessments. It was predicted that by providing new students with guidance on how to best use their strengths to integrate successfully into school life the likelihood of future bullying and victimization would be reduced.

The second use of the intervention room was as a “Cool Down & Prevention,” where students experiencing behavioral or emotional problems could go to calm down. Staff were on hand to prevent the behaviors from escalating and offer helpful advice. The room also acted as an alternative to suspension from school, whereby students could be mandated to spend a certain number of days in the “Good Choices Room.” An ambassador's club for students identified as being at high risk for bullying perpetration or victimization was also held in the resource room. Finally, mental health professionals provided student and parent workshops and staff received tailored training on the strength‐based approach to bullying prevention and intervention.

6.62. Take the LEAD (TTL)

The TTL (Domino,  2011 ,  2013 ) program was designed to increase the social competencies of participants in order to reduce bullying behaviors. The intervention is based on SEL and PYD theories.

Various social and emotional skills are targeted during the 16‐weekly lesson curriculum, including: (1) Self‐awareness; (2) Self‐management; (3) Social‐awareness; (4) Relationship skills; (5) Decision making; (6) Problem solving; and (7) Leadership. Trained teachers taught TTL lessons during normal class periods on a weekly basis. Participating teachers were trained on the skill‐based curriculum by the developers of the TTL program. During training, teachers were taught about specific learning objectives and goals of the intervention program, and also about the lesson plans and activities involved in “Take the LEAD.” Information evenings for parent were also held as part of the TTL intervention and aimed to raise parents' awareness of key social‐emotional issues.

Each of the sixteen TTL lessons involved specific learning objectives and goals. Lessons involved a combination of knowledge and skill development and an application component, so that participants were given the opportunity to apply skills in real‐world settings. For example, the “Communication skills” lesson aimed to “explore elements of communication that enhance interpersonal skills and foster positive relationships (Domino,  2013 , p. 432). During this lesson students brainstormed ideas about effective and positive communication techniques and were then required to practice these skills (e.g., eye contact, active listening and showing empathy) in pairs. Finally, participants were required to practice these techniques in an interview with a classmate, and later with a parent.

6.63. *Toronto antibullying program

The Toronto antibullying program was inspired by the OBPP (Pepler et al.,  2004 , p. 125). It was based on the understanding that bullying is a problem that extends far beyond the individual children; it involved the peer group and the teachers, as well as the parents of children (Pepler et al.,  2004 , p. 127). The program included several preventive elements implemented at the school, parent, and classroom levels, as well as additional work with specific students involved in bullying as perpetrators or victims.

The level of implementation of the program varied across the intervention schools. However, in all intervention schools three critical elements were found: staff training, codes of behavior and improved playground supervision. At the school level an emphasis was placed on developing a positive code of behavior among students, engaging teachers, and promoting positive playground interactions. At the parent level, information nights were held during which parents were informed about the problem of bullying in their school. Also, information about the program and its objectives was sent home. At the classroom level, children were involved in developing classroom rules against bullying. Further classroom activities aimed to change students' attitudes and to promote healthy relationships among peers. At the individual level, children involved in bullying as perpetrators or victims received specialized intervention through consultation and though engaging their parents. Follow‐up monitoring of these cases helped school authorities to establish that bullying incidents were terminated or discontinued.

6.64. *Transtheoretical‐based Tailored antibullying program

This antibullying initiative involved “transtheoretical‐based tailored programs that provided individualized and interactive computer interventions to populations of middle and high school students involved in bullying as bullies, victims and/or passive bystanders” (Evers et al.,  2007 , p. 398). The intervention involved only three 30‐min computer sessions during the school year for the students and a 10‐page manual for staff and parents with optional activities. According to the program designers, the transtheoretical model is “a theory of behavior change that applies particular change processes like decision‐making and reinforcement to help individuals progress at particular stages of change” (Evers et al.,  2007 , p. 398).

Intervention materials included the “Build Respect, Stop Bullying” program, which is a multicomponent, internet‐based computer system (Evers et al.,  2007 , p. 402). Students initiated the program by running a multimedia CD which brought them to the program website. Students could use the program by creating a login name based on personal information and a password. Once the students registered for the program, logged in and consented to be involved in the intervention study, they were given instructions on how to proceed. This multi‐media program also included short movies (videos) of students giving testimonials about bullying (Evers et al.,  2007 , p. 403).

Other elements of the program included: (1) a 10‐page family guide, sent to children's homes, which provided brief information about the multi‐media program and its relation to the antibullying initiative; and (2) a 10‐page staff guide, which included general information about bullying and how to support student change, classroom activities and information on how to work with parents. Teachers were not provided with any training.

6.65. Utrecht Healthy Schools

The Utrecht Healthy Schools program was a comprehensive educational program that targeted adolescent health behaviors (Busch et al.,  2013 ). The integrated program aims to improve various different health‐related behaviors exhibited by Dutch secondary school students, such as, nutrition, exercise, sexual health, substance and alcohol use, smoking behaviors, bullying, and excessive use of television, gaming and Internet use. The program was implemented as a whole‐school approach and consisted of five key components.

First, participating schools implemented a “healthy school” policy outlining a zero‐tolerance attitude toward risky or violent behaviors, such as alcohol use, smoking or bullying. Second, the program aimed to create a healthy school environment by offering healthy options in the canteen, removing vending machines, ensuring proper sports facilities, hosting alcohol‐free school parties and implementing a smoke‐free school yard. In the third instance, the program aimed to involve parents in intervention activities by providing parent workshops and/or take‐home activities for students. Finally, curriculum materials focused on personal skill development and the program aimed to incorporate public health services into the intervention program.

6.66. *Viennese Social Competence Training program (ViSC)

The ViSC aimed to provide students “with systematic theoretically‐based guidance in becoming responsible and competent actors in conflict situations” (Atria & Spiel,  2007 ; Yanagida et al.,  2019 ). It was specifically designed for disadvantaged adolescents aged fifteen to nineteen who were considered at risk for future problems (Atria & Spiel,  2007 , p. 179). The theoretical basis of the programs drew its main ideas from social information processing theory and from research that approached the problem of bullying as a group phenomenon (Gollwitzer et al.,  2006 , p. 126).

The ViSC program consisted of thirteen lessons which were divided into three phases: (1) impulses and group dynamics; (2) reflection; and (3) action. The first phase, entitled “impulses and group dynamics,” consisted of six lessons and the main aim was to enhance students' competence in dealing with critical situations by teaching them how to look at social situations from different perspectives using vignette stories, discussions and role‐plays. The second phase, reflection , involved one lesson during which pupils reflected on what had been learned in the first phase of the program.

The last phase, action , consisted of six lessons during which the trainer asked students to define how they wanted to benefit from the remaining lessons. The trainer collected students' individual ideas, evaluated them and—along with the students—put them in practice in alignment with the global goal of the program: enhancing pupils' social competence. The third phase of the program was flexible and it could involve several projects suggested by pupils such as a movie production, a work of art, the organization of a party, and so on. This flexibility was allowed and was, in fact, a main feature of ViSC because organizing such projects “involves a variety of critical situations, in which alternative, nonaggressive response options can be probed, rehearsed, and evaluated for success” (Gollwitzer et al.,  2006 , p. 126).

Based on the design of the program, the training of students was conducted by specialist trainers, not their teachers. The trainers participated in instruction workshops and were also supervised during the training by the ViSC developers' team at the University of Vienna (Gollwitzer et al.,  2006 , p. 127). According to the principles of the program, it was essential for the trainer to avoid receiving any information about individual students offered by teachers; students' assessments should be based on standardized diagnostic measures (Atria & Spiel,  2007 , p. 184). Moreover, the training was conducted during regular class time and teachers were advised to attend the lessons, so that the program was taken seriously by the students. ViSC has been implemented and evaluated three times: by Gollwitzer (2005), by Atria and Spiel ( 2007 ) and by Gollwitzer et al. ( 2006 ).

6.67. Youth‐led program

The Youth‐led program (YLP; Connolly et al.,  2015 ) was a generalized middle school violence prevention program. This program was developed by a community agency, and involved training high school students to lead violence prevention workshops with middle school students in order to increase the latter's knowledge and attitudes of peer aggression and victimization.

Experienced mental health professionals were employed to select and supervise male and female high school students that would become “youth leaders.” These students received training in afterschool sessions on skills and knowledge of peer aggression. Topics covered included bullying perpetration and victimization, but also peer aggression, violence, and harassment.

The final sessions of this training required the youth leaders to create two individualized presentations; one covering bullying and the other discussing general aggression. Mixed gender pairs of youth leaders then conducted these presentations in middle school classrooms under the supervision of a mental health worker. These presentations lasted for approximately 45 min each.

6.68. *Youth Matters

The Youth Matters program used “a curricular and a modified systemic approach to bullying prevention” (Jenson & Dieterich,  2007 , p. 287). The aim of the curriculum was to strengthen peer and school norms against antisocial behaviors by addressing critical issues (issue modules) such as the difference between teasing and bullying, building empathy, risks and norms surrounding aggression and so on. The curriculum also aimed to promote skills (skill modules; structured skills training sessions) that students could use in order to stay safe at school, cope with bullying, enhance their social skills and improve their peer relationships. To address systemic issues associated with bullying, curriculum modules terminated with the development of classroom or school‐wide projects, which placed emphasis on the negative consequences of bullying for students.

The curriculum consisted of 10‐session modules. Each module included a 30–40‐page story, the content of which was directly linked to the structured skills training sessions. When looking at the implementation of the program, all curriculum materials were “language sensitive”: translated into Spanish for use in the three Spanish‐speaking classrooms included in the evaluation. Youth Matters curriculum modules were offered to fourth and fifth graders. According to Jenson and Dieterich ( 2007 , p. 287), grades 4 and 5 were selected “based on an appropriate fit between developmental ability and curricula.”

The Youth Matters program was based on a theoretically grounded curriculum. The curriculum was based on theoretical constructs derived from the Social Development Model. The latter integrated perspectives from three theories (i.e., social control theory, social learning theory and differential association theory) and proposed that four factors inhibit the development of antisocial development in children. These were: (1) bonding or attachment to family, schools and positive peers; (2) belief in the shared values or norms of the above‐mentioned social units; (3) external constraints or consistent standards against antisocial behavior; and (4) social, cognitive and emotional skills that can be seen as protective tools for children to solve problems and perform adequately in social situations. The Youth Matters curriculum addressed each of these four core areas.

6.69. Zero program

The Zero antibullying program is based on the idea that bullying is predominately a version of proactive aggression (Roland et al.,  2010 ). The program aims to create a school environment that prevents these forms of proactive aggression. The intervention places the majority of responsibility for bullying prevention and intervention with the adults within the school environment (Roland et al.,  2010 ). School staff were required to define clear standards of positive prosocial behavior among the students and to ensure that these standards are met. Thus, the adults within the school context adhere to a “zero tolerance” policy toward bullying. Another key feature of the intervention is that students are instructed to treat all school property appropriately and respectfully and the intervention philosophy is carried into classroom activities and standards also.

During the intervention, class teachers engage their respective classes in active discussions about issues relating to bullying in adherence with the intervention guidelines. The preventative function of the Zero program takes both a direct and indirect approach (Roland & Galloway,  2004 ). Teachers are also expected to be vigilant and visible in school corridors and playgrounds during nonclass time and follow intervention procedures when dealing with specific instances of bullying (Roland et al.,  2010 ). When particular instances of bullying are identified, the victim is first approached and takes part in a few sessions with trained staff being comforted and assured. Parental involvement also occurs at this point. Finally, the perpetrators are invited to attend meetings and conflict resolution occurs under a restorative justice model.

6.70. Zippy's Friends

Zippy's Friends is a universal school‐based program for children aged 6–8 years old (Holen et al.,  2013 ; Mishara & Ystgaard,  2006 ). The overarching aim of the program is to develop and improve participants' coping strategies in order to reduce and prevent psychological problems. Zippy' Friends has been funded by the global suicide prevention organization “Befrienders International,” and is now distributed internationally by the nonprofit group “Partnership for Children.”

The intervention is delivered over the course of 24 weekly lessons, that are implemented by classroom teachers. The program is based around six stories of the imaginary character “Zippy,” three children, and their families and friends. A structured curriculum outline for each lesson allows participants to engage and discuss the various themes that emerge in each of the stories. Themes that are incorporated include: emotions; communication; friendships; conflict resolution; loss and change.

Teachers are provided with a detailed manual for the program and are required to guide their classrooms through the intervention while also encouraging active engagement with the content. Typical activities that are involved in the Zippy's friends program include: drawing, role‐playing, performing exercises, play and dialogue.

7. RESULTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

In addition to the newly identified studies ( n  = 88), primary evaluations ( n  = 53) discovered by Farrington and Ttofi ( 2009 ) are also included in the present systematic review, giving a total of 141 studies. However, this updated systematic review has excluded evaluations that used an “other” experimental‐control design ( n  = 13). Next, a detailed explanation is provided about studies which were excluded from the current review and justifications for this decision.

7.1. Studies excluded because of missing information

A certain amount of statistical information is needed in order to produce meaningful effect sizes in a meta‐analysis. We estimated an antibullying program's effectiveness as the difference between the experimental and control groups on bullying outcomes, either measured as the percentage of bullies/nonbullies or victims/nonvictims or based on mean scores on measurement instruments before and after implementation of the intervention.

However, 21 studies identified by our systematic review did not present sufficient effect size information, and so the primary authors of these publications were contacted. We were able to obtain relevant information for the majority of these studies, but three authors were unable to provide required statistics and seven did not respond to our email communication.

Thus, 10 studies had to be excluded from our meta‐analysis because of a lack of information regarding quantitative outcomes. These relate to: Gradinger et al. ( 2015 ); Harpin ( 2011 ); Kyriakides et al. ( 2014 ); Lewis et al. ( 2013 ); Lishak ( 2011 ); Low and Van Ryzin ( 2014 ); van der Ploeg et al. ( 2016 ); Sahin (2012); Schroeder et al. ( 2012 ); and Wurf (2010). In the previous review by Farrington and Ttofi ( 2009 ), 44 out of 53 evaluations provided sufficient information on quantitative outcomes.

7.2. Studies excluded because of nonindependent samples

One further stipulation of a meta‐analysis is that the final samples must be independent of one another (Borenstein et al.,  2009 ; Ellis,  2010 ). Overlapping samples are statistically dependent, and thus the variance of the summary effect size produced by the meta‐analysis would be under‐estimated (Wilson,  2010 ). Therefore, before conducting our meta‐analysis we ensured that all samples were independent of one another.

This issue of nonindependent samples was particularly relevant for the multiple evaluations of the KiVa antibullying program. Our thorough systematic searches identified 16 potentially includable studies presenting evaluation data from implementation of the KiVa program (i.e., Ahtola et al.,  2012 ,  2013 ; Garandeau, Lee, et al.,  2014 , Garandeau, Poskiparta, et al.,  2014 ; Haataja et al.,  2014 ; Hutchings & Clarkson,  2015 ; Kärnä et al.,  2011a ,  2011b ,  2013 ; Nocentini & Menesini,  2015 ; Noland,  2011 ; Sainio et al.,  2012 ; Salmivalli et al.,  2012 ; Williford et al.,  2012 ,  2013 ; Yang & Salmivalli,  2015 ). For a description of each of these studies, see Table  7 .

Description of KiVa studies

* Included in meta‐analysis.

However, following further screening, only four of the aforementioned studies were subsequently included in the systematic and meta‐analytic review (i.e., Kärnä et al.,  2011a ,  2011b ,  2013 ; Nocentini & Menesini, 2016). These four studies presented independent results of the KiVa program from the initial nationwide evaluation in Finland. Kärnä et al. ( 2011a ) used an age cohort design with adjacent cohorts and reported the initial results from the nationwide implementation in Finland. Second, Kärnä et al. ( 2011b ) reported the results from the RCT with Finnish students in grades 4–6, and Kärnä et al. ( 2013 ) reported results for students in grades 1–3 and 7–9. In addition, Nocentini and Menesini (2016) reported the results of the implementation and evaluation of KiVa in Italian schools. The remaining 12 publications relating to the KiVa program utilized data from the RCT evaluation in Finland (i.e., Kärnä et al.,  2013 or Kärnä et al.,  2011b ) but explored different facets of the program's effectiveness.

Four studies identified in our systematic searches replaced evaluations included in the earlier review. For example: (1) Menard and Grotpeter ( 2014 ) was a continuation of the Menard et al. ( 2008 ) evaluation; (2) Cross et al. ( 2011 ) was a republication of the Cross et al. ( 2004 ) evaluation included in the previous review; (3) Jenson et al. ( 2013 ) and Jenson et al. ( 2010 ) presented data from additional follow‐up points to the Jenson et al. ( 2007 ) evaluation; and (4) Frey et al. ( 2009 ) used an age cohort design to evaluate follow‐up effects from the earlier Frey et al. ( 2005 ) study. In cases such as these, the most recent publication, or the publication with the most statistical information, was included in the meta‐analysis.

Ten studies (published both before and since 2009) were identified as reporting the effectiveness of an antibullying program from the same sample, or were repeat publications of earlier studies (e.g., DeRosier,  2004 and DeRosier & Marcus,  2005 ; Domino,  2011 and Domino,  2013 ; Espelage et al.,  2013 and Espelage et al.,  2015 ; Jenson et al.,  2013 and Jenson et al.,  2010 ; and Menesini et al.,  2012 ; Study 2 and Palladino et al.,  2012 ). In these instances, the most recent publications were selected, and as a result, five studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis.

7.3. Included studies

Therefore, 128 studies are included. Table  5 summarizes the intervention programs and methodological components of the 79 newly identified studies that are included in the present systematic review. For details of the remaining 49 studies please refer to Farrington and Ttofi ( 2009 ).

7.4. Moderator analysis

The following moderators were selected a priori for further analysis, under the descriptive label (i.e., location of intervention, publication type, publication year), design label (i.e., evaluation method and unit of allocation/randomization), and the program heading (i.e., name of intervention, COI, and program specificity). Results of these moderator analyses analogous to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) are presented in Sections 8.5.1 to 8.5.7 of the present report.

7.4.1. Evaluation method

The primary moderator chosen for further analysis was evaluation method. Specifically, whether the evaluation was conducted using a RCT, quasi‐experimental with before and after measures (BA/EC) or age cohort (AC) design.

Overall, in relation to bullying perpetration outcomes, 36 evaluations used RCT designs, 31 used BA/EC designs and 14 used age cohort designs. However, due to some evaluations reporting data for multiple independent samples, a total of 40 effect sizes were estimated for bullying perpetration outcomes from RCT designs. A further 36 were estimated from BA/EC designs and 14 effect sizes came from evaluations using age cohort designs.

For bullying victimization outcomes, overall, 33 evaluations used RCT designs that gave 37 independent effect sizes for bullying victimization and 37 evaluations used BA/EC designs and gave 42 independent effect sizes. Similar to perpetration outcomes, 14 evaluations used age cohort designs to evaluate the effect of antibullying programs on bullying victimization outcomes.

7.4.2. Location of intervention

Evaluations included in the present analysis were conducted in many different countries around the world. However, there were only a few countries in which multiple evaluations of antibullying programs had been published.

Specifically, in the following countries only one evaluation was included in the present report: Austria (i.e., Yanagida et al.,  2019 ); Brazil (i.e., Silva et al.,  2016 ); China (i.e., Ju et al., 2009); Czechoslovakia (modern day Czech Republic and Solvakia; i.e., Rican et al.,  1996 ); Hong Kong (i.e., Wong et al.,  2011 ); Ireland (O'Moore and Milton,  2004 ); Malaysia (i.e., Yaakub et al.,  2010 ); Romania (i.e., Trip et al.,  2015 ); Sweden (i.e., Kimber et al.,  2008 ); Switzerland (Alsaker & Valkanover,  2001 ); South Africa (Meyer & Lesch,  2000 ); and Zambia (Kaljee et al.,  2017 ).

If these evaluations were to be included in further moderator analysis, we would be examining the differences based on only one sample and effect size. Therefore, moderator analysis was conducted only between locations in which multiple evaluations of antibullying programs had been conducted.

So, of the 100 evaluations included in our meta‐analysis of school‐based antibullying programs, the majority (80 for perpetration, 84 for victimization) were conducted in one of 12 different countries. With respect to bullying perpetration outcomes, these countries were as follows: Australia ( n  = 2); Canada ( n  = 6); Cyprus ( n  = 3); Finland ( n  = 6); Germany ( n  = 5); Greece ( n  = 2); Italy ( n  = 11); Netherlands ( n  = 3); Norway ( n  = 8); Spain ( n  = 3); UK ( n  = 4); and United States ( n  = 26). With respect to bullying victimization outcomes, these countries were as follows: Australia ( n  = 3); Canada ( n  = 7); Cyprus ( n  = 3); Finland ( n  = 6); Germany ( n  = 4); Greece ( n  = 2); Italy ( n  = 10); the Netherlands ( n  = 3); Norway ( n  = 7); Spain ( n  = 3); UK ( n  = 6); and United States ( n  = 28).

7.4.3. Publication type and year

Overall, the majority of evaluations were published in peer‐reviewed journal articles, for both bullying perpetration ( n  = 67) and bullying victimization ( n  = 72) outcomes. Two evaluations were published in chapters of edited books and both reported effects of a program on both bullying victimization and perpetration. No evaluations identified were published as entire books. Moreover, 12 unpublished dissertations were identified that published evaluation data for bullying perpetration and bullying victimization outcomes. Data was also retrieved for both outcomes from three governmental reports. Four of the effect sizes included in the present report were estimated from data emailed to authors (M. M. T. and D. P. F.) in preparation of the previous Campbell report (i.e., Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ).

We also categorized included evaluations according to whether they were included in the previous report (i.e., “2009” studies), or only included in the present report (i.e., “2016” studies). In relation to bullying perpetration outcomes, 37 studies were coded as 2009 studies and 53 studies were coded as 2016 studies. Similarly, more studies were coded as 2016 ( n  = 54) studies in comparison to 2009 ( n  = 39) studies for bullying victimization outcomes.

7.4.4. Intervention program

We found that very few specific antibullying programs had been implemented and evaluated more than once using independent samples. Sixty‐five different school‐based bullying intervention and prevention programs were included in our meta‐analysis, but only eight were repeatedly evaluated. Moderator analysis with respect to the specific intervention program therefore, focused on programs that had been repeatedly evaluated.

In relation to reducing bullying perpetration outcomes the intervention programs thus included in our moderator analysis were: BPYS ( n  = 3; e.g., Menard & Grotpeter,  2014 ); fairplayer.manual ( n  = 2; e.g., Bull et al.,  2009 ); KiVa ( n  = 6; Kärnä et al.,  2011b ); NoTrap! ( n  = 4; e.g., Menesini et al.,  2012 ); Second Step ( n  = 3; e.g., Espelage et al.,  2015 ); Steps to Respect ( n  = 2; e.g., Frey et al.,  2005 ); ViSC ( n  = 5; e.g., Yanagida et al.,  2019 ).

Similarly, these interventions were included in our moderator analysis in relation to bullying victimization outcomes with the exception of the fairplayer.manual program. This intervention was evaluated twice only in relation to bullying perpetration outcomes.

Additionally, multiple evaluations of the OBPP were included in our meta‐analysis. Overall, 12 independent evaluations of this intervention were included in our analysis in relation to bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. These are included in our moderator analysis as a collective subgroup and also as further subgroups. Evaluations of the OBPP conducted in the United States (perpetration n  = 6; victimization n  = 7) and those conducted in Norway (perpetration n  = 5; victimization n  = 5) were included in the moderator analysis separately. There was one evaluation of the OBPP conducted in Malaysia is included in the overall category ( n  = 12).

7.4.5. Unit of allocation/randomization

Systematic review findings showed that one consistent issue with included intervention programs was that the unit of allocation of participants, or clusters of participants, was different to the unit of analysis in most evaluations. Age cohort designs were omitted from this moderator analysis as the unit of allocation was largely unclear due to the logistics of this experimental design.

The majority of RCT and BA/EC evaluations assigned schools to experimental conditions (perpetration n  = 44; victimization n  = 47) yet the unit of analysis was individual students. A number of evaluations (perpetration n  = 19; victimization n  = 15) assigned classes to experimental conditions yet the unit of analysis was individual students. Less than 10 evaluations (perpetration n  = 7; victimization n  = 9) included assigned students to experimental and control conditions. One study randomly assigned districts to experimental conditions, and information was not available for five studies in relation to bullying perpetration outcomes and four studies in relation to bullying victimization.

7.4.6. Conflict of interest

In the present report, 40 studies were categorized as high COI. A large number of studies (perpetration n  = 36; victimization n  = 39) were considered low COI, and 14 were categorized as possible COI. Information concerning COI was unavailable for 4 evaluations in relation to bullying perpetration outcomes.

7.4.7. Program specificity

Overall, a small number ( n  = 11) of studies included in our analysis were coded as low on the program specificity variable. The vast majority of evaluations were considered highly specific (i.e., were mostly concerned with only bullying behavioral outcomes; n  = 59). Additionally, 18 studies were categorized as medium in relation to specificity, where extra outcome variables were measured but these variables were related to bullying (e.g., school climate).

7.5. Risk of bias analysis

Figure  2 presents the results of the risk of bias analysis for each of the items on the EPOC tool and the additional items we included. The following section describes each of these categories in more detail, with examples of high‐ and low‐risk studies included. The main limitation in assessing risk of bias was the lack of information reported by primary studies. Thus, while the best effort was made to categorize each primary evaluation as being high or low risk, a large number of studies were recorded as “unclear” risk.

Risk of bias analysis results. AC, allocation concealment; AS, allocation sequence; BC, baseline equivalence on participant characteristics; BE, baseline equivalence on outcomes; BOA, blind outcome assessment; COI, conflict of interest; CP, contamination protection; ID, incomplete outcome data; SOR, selected outcome reporting

As seen in Figure  2 , the fewest studies were considered unclear risk on CP and selected outcome reporting. Furthermore, a large number of studies were considered low risk on these items.

For the purpose of analysis, the categories high, unclear, and low risk were transformed into scores of 3, 2, and 0 respectively. A continuous “risk of bias” variable was then estimated as the sum total of scores on each of the EPOC items. As such, the lowest possible score a study could be given was zero and the maximum score was 24.

Descriptive statistical analysis identified that risk of bias scores ranged from 0 to 17, with a mean score of 9.62. Meta‐regression analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between risk of bias and effect sizes. The result of this analysis is included in Section  7 of this report. The following sections provide more detail about each of the risk categories.

7.5.1. Allocation sequence

AS refers to the way in which participants, or clusters of participants, were assigned to experimental conditions. For example, low‐risk studies were those where a random number generator or another randomization software was used. In total, 30 studies were categorized as high risk on the AS item. Moreover, 29 studies were low risk and 32 were unclear risk.

7.5.2. Allocation concealment

AC item refers to whether the method of allocation was concealed from participants or not. In total, 36 studies were categorized as high risk on the AC item. A further 19 studies were considered low risk, and 34 were unclear risk.

7.5.3. Baseline equivalence: Outcome

Baseline equivalence refers to the comparability of experimental and control participants before the intervention has taken place. This item specifically refers to equivalence on relevant outcomes, in this case, school bullying perpetration and victimization. When experimental and control participants are not statistically significant at baseline then we can be more certain that any changes are a result of the intervention. Overall, 14 studies were categorized as high risk on the baseline equivalence on bullying outcomes item. A total of 54 studies were low risk and 21 were unclear risk.

7.5.4. Baseline equivalence: Characteristics

Similarly, baseline equivalence on participant characteristics increases the chance that any change is a result of the intervention, and not a confounding variable such as differential participant characteristics at baseline. Overall, 15 studies were categorized as high risk on the baseline equivalence in participant characteristics item, 64 studies were low risk, and 11 were unclear risk.

7.5.5. Incomplete outcome data

Included evaluations were required to incorporate pre‐ and post‐intervention measures of bullying (except if randomization was used). However, because of this, it is likely that there will be some attrition in primary studies. The incomplete outcome data item referred to the risk associated with differential attrition between experimental groups and/or ways in which attrition and missing cases were dealt with by primary studies. Twelve studies were categorized as high risk on the incomplete outcome data item. Additionally, 48 studies were low risk and 29 were unclear risk.

7.5.6. Blind outcome assessment

This item assesses the risk associated with any bias which may arise if outcome measurements are not conducted blindly. In other words, if the individual, or individuals, who administer and collect the measurement instruments are aware of the experimental conditions of participants at the time of measurement. Overall, 27 studies were categorized as high risk on the BOA item. Twenty studies were low risk and 43 were unclear risk.

7.5.7. Contamination protection

Risk of contamination occurs when there is a possibility that experimental and control participants may interact or encounter one another during the course of the evaluation. Thus, the effects of the intervention may “spill over” to control students and impact the results of the evaluation. In our analysis, 35 studies were categorized as high risk on the CP item, 47 studies were low risk, and 9 were unclear risk.

7.5.8. Selective outcome reporting

SOR occurs when the outcomes reported in an evaluation study differ from the outcomes of interest proposed originally. For example, if a trial protocol proposed different outcomes than those actually reported in the publication of the trial results. Two studies were categorized as high risk on the SOR item. Eighty‐four studies were low risk, and three were unclear risk.

8. META‐ANALYSIS

After accounting for missing information, studies excluded because of their methodology (i.e., “other experimental‐control” designs), and studies with overlapping samples, a total of 41 studies were excluded from the meta‐analysis. Thus, a total of 100 studies were eligible for inclusion in our meta‐analysis. Table  8 outlines the raw data from these studies used to estimate effect sizes. The Comprehensive Meta‐Analysis (CMA) software was used to estimate all summary effect sizes in the present meta‐analysis.

Raw data from included evaluations

Abbreviations: A, after; B, before; C, control; E, experimental; M , mean; N , sample size; n , group sample size.

8.1. Effect sizes

A meta‐analysis aims to estimate comparable effect sizes from multiple primary studies. The choice of effect size depends on how statistical information is reported by primary studies (Borenstein et al.,  2009 ). In meta‐analyses such as this one, the data is largely presented in continuous (e.g., means, standard deviations, sample sizes) or dichotomous (e.g., prevalence or percentages) forms (Wilson,  2010 ). Thus, primary effect sizes estimated were Cohen's d and Odds Ratios.

As previously mentioned, we aimed to estimate one effect size for each independent sample included in primary studies. Therefore, where studies reported results separately for male and female participants, or primary and secondary school students, one effect size was calculated for each group.

For primary studies that presented results as percentages or frequencies of participants identifying as either bullies or victims, the odds ratio (OR) effect size was estimated. The ORs for before and after intervention time‐points were calculated independently. The CMA™ software that we used to analyze effect sizes in the present report did not allow us to enter raw data for before and after time‐points for primary studies that reported dichotomous outcomes separately. Thus, we were unable to use this software to calculate a pre‐post intervention estimate for these studies. Hence, these calculations were carried out manually, 5 by the first author, using the method outlined by Farrington and Ttofi ( 2009 ).

Cohen's d was estimated for primary studies when results were reported in the form of continuous data. Cohen's d is estimated as the difference between experimental and control means divided by the pooled standard deviation (Wilson,  2010 , p. 184). Effects were assigned a positive direction in cases where bullying was less in the experimental group compared to the control group or where the reduction in bullying outcomes was larger in the experimental group in comparison to the change in the control group. Following this logic, a negative effect was found when there was: (1) a larger reduction in the control group compared to the experimental group; or (2) there was no change or increase in bullying perpetration/victimization in the experimental group but a reduction or smaller increase in the control group.

For comparability, all effect sizes were converted to ODs. Summary mean effects for bullying perpetration, bullying victimization, and for each of the moderator subgroup are thus reported as odds ratios. In the present review, odds ratios greater than one represent a positive, or desirable, intervention effect. Namely, a reduction of bullying in the experimental group, that is comparably larger than the change in bullying in the control group. Therefore, the change is attributed to have occurred because of the intervention program. Similarly, odds ratios less than one represent a negative, or undesirable, intervention effect and odds ratios that equal one represents a null effect.

8.2. Corrections for clustering

As the present review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of school‐based antibullying programs, cluster‐randomized trials were included. Clustering is a common phenomenon in educational evaluations (Donner & Klar,  2002 ), and occurs when “clusters,” not individuals, are randomly assigned to experimental conditions (Higgins et al.,  2011 ). In other words, primary studies sometimes assigned classes or schools to intervention and control conditions, rather than individual students.

Often this approach is utilized in evaluation studies to reduce treatment contamination and increase administrative convenience (Donner et al.,  2001 ). However, one of the main issues with incorporating cluster‐randomized trials in a meta‐analysis is that participants within a cluster are likely to be more homogeneous than participants in another cluster (Higgins et al.,  2011 ). Thus, the variance of estimates of treatment effectiveness will be under‐estimated (Donner & Klar,  2002 , p. 2974). Clustering could occur for several reasons in studies included in the present report. For example: (1) classes of children, not individual children, were e randomized to intervention or control condition; (2) the intervention was implemented at the classroom level (i.e., to a class or group of children at one time); or (3) the intervention was targeted at teachers, who were trained to implement the intervention in their respective classrooms.

Therefore, effect sizes in the present meta‐analysis were corrected for the inclusion of clusters in primary studies. This is achieved by estimating a design effect:

where M represents the mean cluster size in each study (e.g., the mean number of students per classroom 6 ) and the ICC is the intraclass correlation coefficient.

The ICC is rarely reported by primary studies (Higgins et al.,  2011 ; Valdebenito et al.,  2018 ). Based on Murray and Blitse ( 2003 ), and subsequently the strategy followed by Farrington and Ttofi ( 2009 ), an ICC of 0.025 was assumed in the current meta‐analysis. The variances of effect sizes were then multiplied by this design effect estimated for each study. In the present meta‐analysis, there were only four studies where corrections for clustering were not required. Three studies (i.e., Berry & Hunt,  2009 ; Knowler & Frederickson,  2013 ; Meyer & Lesch,  2000 ) randomly assigned participants to experimental conditions, and Elledge et al. ( 2010 ) described an intervention that was not implemented in a classroom (i.e., the intervention occurred in one‐on‐one sessions with victims of bullying).

8.3. Computational models

The results of our meta‐analysis are presented using two different models. First, we will report the results as estimated using a random effects model that weights studies, largely in proportion to the between‐study variance and accounting for sampling error, thus allowing for the natural variation that occurs between primary studies (Borenstein et al.,  2009 ). We also present the results under the MVA model (Jones, 2005; Farrington & Welsh,  2013 ). which uses the same estimation of a mean effect size as the fixed effects model in that it assigns greater weight to larger evaluations, but also accounts for the between‐study heterogeneity. The MVA model takes account of the heterogeneity of effect sizes to fit the data exactly and yields the same mean effect size as a fixed effect model, but with and increased confidence interval. 7

Farrington and Welsh ( 2013 ) have argued that larger evaluations should be given more weight, and that adding to the variance of effect sizes in order to reduce the heterogeneity is not an optimal method of estimating the weighted mean effect size. When there is considerable heterogeneity in effect sizes, all studies tend to be given much the same weighting in a random effects model. Therefore, several effect sizes from independent samples in one study (e.g., a multisite evaluation) will have a greater weight in the random effects model than in the fixed effects model.

Comparing six models of estimating mean effect sizes for the impact on CCTV on crime rate, Farrington and Welsh ( 2013 ) found that five of the six models produced very similar mean odds ratio effect sizes, with the exception of the random effects model. In this case the random effects model estimated a much higher mean odds ratio (Farrington & Welsh,  2013 , p. 11).

The MVA model is suggested as an alternative approach that overcomes the issues of the random effects model. This technique can be seen as an adjustment to the fixed effects model and combines both the strengths of the fixed effects model (i.e., larger studies = larger weights) and the random effects model (i.e., adjusting for highly probable between‐study variance), and has been used in several meta‐analyses from both the behavioral sciences (e.g., Portnoy & Farrington,  2015 ; Ttofi et al.,  2016 ; Zych, Baldry, et al.,  2019 ; Zych, Viejo, et al.,  2019 ) and medical sciences, where this is known as the “Shore adjustment” (e.g., Ayieko et al.,  2014 ; Carlos‐Wallace et al.,  2016 ; Erren et al.,  2009 ; Steinmaus et al.,  2008 ).

A full review of the strengths and limitations of this model is beyond the scope of the current review. Therefore, in our current meta‐analysis we report mean effect sizes for the impact of antibullying programs on bullying perpetration and bullying victimization using both the random effects model and the MVA model. In later sections, we discuss the differences in the weighted mean effect sizes according to the model chosen.

8.4. Moderator analysis

In traditional empirical research when one wishes to compare two mean values to evaluate the difference between two participants, or two groups of participants, a t test is the standard statistical test. In meta‐analysis, we want to compare subgroups of studies rather than sub‐groups of individuals, so the analysis is slightly different. We followed guidelines provided by noted meta‐analysts for this type of analysis (Borenstein et al.,  2009 ; Lipsey & Wilson,  2001 ).

Our approach involved two steps: (1) computing the mean effect and variance for each subgroup; and (2) comparing the mean effects between subgroups (Borenstein et al.,  2009 , p. 152). This approach has been used previously by researchers to conduct similar analyses (e.g., Kaminski et al.,  2008 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ).

Comparing the mean effect sizes for subgroups involves a method that is analogous to a one‐way ANOVA in primary research (Hedges,  1982 ; Lipsey & Wilson,  2001 ; Wilson, 2002). The meta‐analyst creates mutually exclusive categories of primary studies and then compares the between‐studies ( Q B ) and the within‐studies ( Q W ) variance.

The between‐studies heterogeneity is the value used to evaluate whether the difference between subgroups is statistically significant (i.e., whether the difference in weighted mean effect sizes for subgroups is, at least partially, explained by the relevant intervention component). Similar to a one‐way analysis of variance, this approach partitions the variance and compares the variability between‐groups. The following formula is used to estimate the Q B :

The degrees of freedom for the between‐studies heterogeneity is estimated as j  − 1 and the statistical significance is determined using a χ 2 distribution. As Q B is estimated using the weights assigned to observed effect sizes, the value will vary between the fixed effects model and the random effects model. Q B is not reported for comparisons of subgroups with very unequal numbers of studies (e.g., location of the evaluation). Under the MVA model, the heterogeneity between groups is estimated by dividing the fixed effects Q B by Q/df . The present report presents results from moderator analysis under both the random effects and MVA models.

8.5. Meta‐regression analysis

CMA™ version 3 software was used to conduct meta‐regression analysis to explore the relationship between continuous moderator variables and perpetration and victimization outcomes. Weighted regression analysis (Lipsey & Wilson,  2001 ) were used to explore which moderators were independently related to school bullying perpetration and victimization. Meta‐regression analyses were only conducted for continuous moderator variables.

Meta‐regression analyses were computed under a fixed effects model, and the standard error of regression coefficients were adjusted using the MVA model. The Q and df of Q for the mean summary effect sizes for subgroups were used to adjust the standard error to reflect between‐study variance.

9. RESULTS OF META‐ANALYSIS

In total, 100 studies were included in our meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of school‐based antibullying programs. From these evaluations, we were able to estimate 103 independent effect sizes. These are presented for bullying perpetration and bullying victimization outcomes in Tables  8 and  9 , respectively. The majority of these effect sizes were estimated from studies that used RCT designs ( n  = 45 effect sizes) or BA/EC designs ( n  = 44 effect sizes). We estimated the remaining 14 effect sizes from age cohort designs.

Meta‐analysis results: School‐bullying perpetration outcomes

Abbreviations: BA/EC, before‐after/experimental control designs; CI, confidence intervals; MVA, multiplicative variance adjustment; OR, odds ratio; RCT, randomized controlled trial; Sig, statistically significant.

9.1. School‐bullying perpetration outcomes

Overall, we found that antibullying programs significantly reduced bullying perpetration under both computational models of meta‐analysis. The effect sizes for each evaluation are presented in Table  9 . The mean summary effect sizes were similar under both the multivariance adjustment model (MVA: OR = 1.324; 95% CI 1.27–1.38; z  = 13.4; p  < .001; I 2  = 81.42) and the random effects model (RE: OR = 1.309; 95% CI: 1.24–1.38; z  = 9.88; p  < 0.001; τ 2  = 0.044).

This result indicates that participants in primary studies who received an antibullying intervention were less likely to report engaging in bullying others after completing the program in comparison to control students who did not partake in the program.

Analysis of the funnel plot (Figure  3 ) suggests that publication bias is not present, as studies are symmetrically distributed around the mean effect size. In addition, point estimates did not vary using Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill procedure under a random effects model (in both cases: OR = 1.308; 95% CI 1.240–1.380). Based on these results, it was reasonable to assume that publication bias was not likely.

Publication bias analysis: school‐bullying perpetration

9.2. School‐bullying victimization outcomes

Overall, we found that antibullying programs significantly reduced bullying victimization under both computational models of meta‐analysis. The effect sizes for each evaluation are presented in Table  10 . The mean summary effect sizes were very similar under both the multivariance adjustment model (MVA: OR = 1.248; 95% CI 1.21–1.29; z  = 12.06; p  < .001; I 2  = 78.327) and the random effects model (RE: OR = 1.244; 95% CI: 1.19–1.31; z  = 8.92; p  < 0.001; τ 2  = 0.032).

Meta‐analysis results: School‐bullying victimization outcomes

This result suggests that students who participated in an antibullying program were significantly less likely to report being bullied by others after receiving the intervention in comparison to students who did not receive the intervention.

The funnel plot in Figure  4 indicates that no publication bias is present in analysis of bullying victimization effect sizes, as the studies fall symmetrically around the mean effect size. Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill procedure highlighted some minor differences between observed effect sizes (OR = 1.245; 95% CI 1.186–1.306; Q  = 460.97) and adjusted effect sizes (OR = 1.241; 95% CI 1.182–1.303; Q  = 473.43). However, this difference is negligible. Based on these results, it was reasonable to assume that publication bias was not likely.

Publication bias analysis: school‐bullying victimization

9.3. Analysis of heterogeneity

In a meta‐analysis, heterogeneity ( Q ) is the between‐study spurious variance that occurs partly because of true variation in effect sizes, but also as a result of random error (Borenstein et al.,  2009 ). Heterogeneity is estimated as the excess variation that exists when we compare the total amount of between‐study variance and within‐study random error.

In the present meta‐analysis, there was significant heterogeneity between studies for both bullying perpetration ( Q  = 323.392; df  = 85; p  < 0.001; I 2  = 73.716) and bullying victimization ( Q  = 387.255; df  = 87; p  < 0.001; I 2  = 77.534) outcomes. Multiple moderator analyses were conducted to explore possible explanations for this heterogeneity.

9.4. Risk of bias analysis

Scores on each of the risk of bias items were summed to estimate a total risk of bias score. This continuous variable was then used to examine the relationship between effectiveness and risk of bias in meta‐regression models.

For perpetration outcomes, risk of bias was not associated with effect size under a random effects model of meta‐regression ( b  = 0.003; SE  = 0.006; z  = 0.50; p  = .621) or under the MVA model ( b  = 0.014; SE  = 0.014; z  = 1.01; p  = .156). Similarly, risk of bias scores did not significantly predict bullying victimization effect sizes under a random effects meta‐regression ( b  = 0.007; SE  = 0.005; z  = 1.30; p  = .195) or the MVA model ( b  = 0.012; SE  = 0.012; z  = 1.006; p  = .157).

9.5. Moderator analyses 8

9.5.1. evaluation method.

Our meta‐analysis further investigated the effectiveness of antibullying programs in relation to the methodological designs used by evaluation studies. The breakdown of results by methodological design is also shown in Tables  9 and  10 for bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes respectively.

Primary studies employing age cohort designs associated with the largest effect sizes for both bullying perpetration (OR = 1.474; 95% CI, 1.39–1.56; p  < .001) and bullying victimization (OR = 1.302; 95% CI, 1.230–1.378; p  < .001) under a random effects model. Similarly, AC studies were associated with the largest effect sizes under the MVA model also (perpetration OR = 1.422; 95% CI, 1.36–1.46; p  < .001) and victimization OR = 1.289; 95% CI, 1.29–1.35; p  < .001).

Under the MVA model of meta‐analysis, mean effect sizes were the same for RCT evaluations (OR = 1.171; 95% CI, 1.08–1.27; p  < .001) and BA/EC evaluations (OR = 1.170; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31; p  = .005) for bullying perpetration outcomes. Moreover, the differences between RCT evaluations (OR = 1.117; 95% CI, 1.03–1.22; p  = .01) and BA/EC evaluations (OR = 1.188; 95% CI, 1.07–1.33; p  = .002) were marginal for bullying victimization outcomes under the MVA model.

In relation to bullying victimization outcomes, before‐after/experimental‐control designs gave the second largest mean effect size (OR = 1.225; 95% CI, 1.085–1.383; p  = 0.001), followed by RCTs (OR = 1.210; 95% CI, 1.091–1.342; p  < .001) under a random effects model. However, the result was the opposite for bullying perpetration outcomes under a random effects model (RCT: OR = 1.244; 95% CI, 1.123–1.379; p  < .001; BA/EC: OR = 1.187; 95% CI, 1.044–1.350; p  = 0.009).

Due to the marginal differences and lack of clear pattern in which method was associated with the largest effect sizes (between RCT and BA/EC) further moderator analysis was not conducted.

9.5.2. Location of intervention

Mean effects for bullying perpetration and bullying victimization outcomes are presented graphically in Figures  5 and  6 , respectively. Table  11 outlines the mean effects for each of the 12 countries for both bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes under both the MVA model and the random effects model.

Forest plot of effect size by location: school‐bullying perpetration

Forest plot of effect sizes by location: school‐bullying victimization

Moderator analyses results: Location of evaluation

Evaluations conducted in Greece were associated with the largest effect sizes for bullying perpetration outcomes, followed by Norway, Italy, United States, and Finland under the MVA model of meta‐analysis. Evaluations conducted in Italy were associated with the largest mean effect sizes in relation to bullying victimization, followed by Spain, Norway, United States, and Finland under the MVA model of meta‐analysis. Additionally, evaluations conducted in Germany and the UK gave significant mean effects when computed using the MVA model.

Under the random effects model, Greek evaluations were similarly associated with the largest effect sizes for bullying perpetration, followed by Spanish and Norwegian evaluations. Evaluations conducted in Italy and the United States were also associated with significant mean effects for reductions in bullying perpetration. In relation to bullying victimization, evaluations conducted in Spain and Italy were associated with very similar mean effect sizes and were the largest of the 12 effect sizes, followed by evaluations conducted in Norway. Evaluations conducted in Australia were also associated with significant mean effects in reducing bullying victimization ( p  < .05) and evaluations conducted in Finland and the United States were nearly statistically significant ( p  = .05 and p  = .06, respectively) under the random effects model.

Due to the large number of different countries and the unequal number of studies in each location, further subgroup analyses were not conducted.

9.5.3. Publication type and year

Table  12 outlines the mean summary effect sizes for each of the publication type moderators for bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. Evaluations for which data was received via email correspondence from evaluators gave the largest mean effect sizes for both bullying perpetration and bullying victimization. Differences in the mean effect sizes for evaluations reported via unpublished dissertations, either masters or doctoral theses, gave the smallest mean effect sizes for both bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. Subgroup analysis was not conducted further using these categorizations due to the imbalance in numbers of evaluations in each category (i.e., evaluations were overwhelmingly published in peer‐reviewed journal article format).

Moderator analyses results: Publication type

However, additional analysis was conducted to examine any potential differences between peer reviewed and nonpeer reviewed evaluations. Therefore, the above categories were collapsed, and evaluations reported by dissertation, chapter, correspondence and governmental reports (perpetration n  = 23; victimization n  = 21) were compared to evaluations published via peer‐reviewed journal article.

Under the MVA model, non‐peer‐reviewed evaluations gave a larger (OR = 1.493; 95% CI, 1.266–1.761; p  < .001) mean effect size than peer‐reviewed evaluations (see Table  11 ). Moreover, moderator analysis indicated that the difference was statistically significant ( Q B  = 12.861; df  = 1; p  < .001). However, under the random effects model, both groups gave similar effect sizes for bullying perpetration outcomes, and the difference between peer‐reviewed (see Table  11 ) and non‐peer‐reviewed (OR = 1.309; 95% CI, 1.137–1.508; p  < .001) was not statistically significant ( Q B  = 0.595; df  = 1; p  = .441).

For bullying victimization outcomes, similar results were obtained. Under the MVA model, non‐peer‐reviewed evaluations gave statistically significant larger mean effect sizes (OR = 1.403; 95% CI, 1.262 1.560; p  < .001) than peer‐reviewed evaluations (see Table  11 ; Q B  = 27.197; df  = 1; p  < .001). Yet, there was a marginal difference under the random effects model between peer‐reviewed (see Table  11 ) and non‐peer‐reviewed (OR = 1.231; 95% CI, 1.059–1.431; p  = .007) and the difference was not statistically significant ( Q B  = 0.048; df  = 1; p  = .827).

The mean summary effect size for “2009” studies on the year of publication moderator was OR = 1.487 (95% CI, 1.430–1.546; p  < .001) under the MVA model and OR = 1.411 (95% CI, 1.315–1.513; p  < .001) under the random effects model for bullying perpetration outcomes. Across both computational models these summary effects were larger than those for studies labeled “2016” on bullying perpetration for the MVA model (OR = 1.243; 95% CI, 1.667–1.324; p  < .001) and the RE model (OR = 1.184; 95% CI, 1.087–1.289; p  < .001). Moderator analysis analogous to the ANOVA showed that this difference was statistically significant ( Q B  = 76.412; df  = 1; p  < .001) under fixed effects and mixed effects analysis ( Q B  = 9.676; df  = 1; p  = .002).

In relation to bullying victimization, the mean summary effect size for studies labeled “2009” was larger (OR = 1.322; 95% CI, 1.220–1.432; p  < .001) under the MVA model than the mean summary effect size for studies labeled “2016” (OR = 1.229; 95% CI, 1.175–1.285; p  < .001). Moderator analysis analogous to the ANOVA found that this difference was statistically significant ( Q B  = 10.115; df  = 1; p  = .001) but the difference between odds ratios was marginal. However, under the random effects model the minimal difference between the “2009” studies (OR = 1.215; 95% CI, 1.094–1.350; p  < .001) was not statistically different to the mean summary effect size for “2019” studies (OR = 1.223; 95% CI, 1.139–1.313; p  < .001; Q B  = 0.010; df  = 1; p  = .920).

9.5.4. Intervention program

The mean summary effect sizes for 10 different intervention programs in relation to reducing bullying perpetration behaviors and 9 different intervention programs in relation to reducing bullying victimization behaviors. Table  13 outlines the effectiveness of specific antibullying programs in reducing both school‐bullying perpetration and victimization. The effectiveness of these programs varied greatly.

Moderator analyses results: Intervention program

In relation to school‐bullying perpetration outcomes, the OBPP was associated with the largest mean effect sizes. In addition, evaluations of the OBPP in Norway were associated with larger summary effect sizes than evaluations of OBPP conducted in the United States. However, the difference was not statistically significant for school‐bullying perpetration outcomes when moderator analysis analogous to the ANOVA was conducted ( Q b  = 3.65; df  = 1; p  = 0.06).

Other programs were significantly effective in reducing school‐bullying perpetration behaviors, for example KiVa, Second Step, and Steps to Respect. Positive effect sizes (i.e., OR > 1) were also observed for the BPYS and NoTrap! programs but these effects were not statistically significant in relation to reduction in bullying perpetration outcomes. Negative effects were found for two antibullying programs, the fairplayer manual and ViSC, although these effects were not statistically significant.

In relation to school‐bullying victimization outcomes, NoTrap! was associated with the largest mean effect size, followed by the BPYS Program, and then the OBPP. Our analysis identified that other antibullying programs were also significantly effective in reducing school‐bullying victimization, for example, Steps to Respect and KiVa.

Again, effect sizes for the OBPP varied between evaluations conducted in Norway and evaluations conducted in the United States for bullying victimization outcomes. Moreover, our analysis found that the difference in the magnitude of these effect sizes was statistically significant ( Q b   =  74.95; df  = 1; p  < 0.001). Our analysis also identified negative effects of the Second Step program in relation to bullying victimization outcomes. Evaluations of the ViSC program also had a negative effect on bullying victimization, although this effect was not statistically significant.

9.5.5. Unit of allocation/randomization

Table  14 outlines the mean effects for subgroups of studies according to how participants were allocated to experimental or control groups. Results are presented for bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes for all studies that allocated studies in classes, schools, or individual students. The mean effects for RCT and BAEC for each allocation unit are also presented separately.

Moderator analyses results: Unit of allocation/randomization

In relation to bullying perpetration outcomes, under the MVA model, studies that assigned participants in classes were associated with the largest effect sizes. However, the difference between the mean effect for all evaluations that used classes or schools as the unit of allocation were verging on statistically significance ( Q b   =  3.705, df  = 1, p  = .054). Under the random effects model, evaluations that assigned students to experimental conditions were associated with the largest effect size for bullying perpetration outcomes when all designs were included, and for RCT evaluations and BA/EC evaluations individually. However, the mean effect size for many of the subgroups were not collectively statistically significant overall under the random effects model.

Similarly, under the MVA model, evaluations conducted using a RCT design, and assigned classes to conditions, were associated with the largest effect size for bullying perpetration, although the mean group for this subgroup was not statistically significant. Moreover, moderator analysis analogous to the ANOVA found that the difference in the mean effect size for RCT designs that assigned classes to experimental and control conditions were not statistically different to RCT designs that assigned schools to experimental and control conditions ( Q b   =  1.140, df  = 1, p  = .286 ) .

In relation to BAEC designs, evaluations that assigned students to experimental conditions were associated with the largest mean effect size, although the effect was not statistically significant. However, the difference between the mean effect for BAEC evaluations that assigned classes and those that assigned schools to conditions was statistically significant under the MVA model ( Q b   =  4.551, df  = 1, p  = .033).

For bullying victimization outcomes, studies where the unit of allocation was classes of participants were associated with the largest effect sizes, followed by schools and individual students under the MVA model. The difference between studies that allocated classes and studies that allocated schools was statistically significant ( Q b   =  12.450, df  = 1, p  < .001). This pattern was observed when all designs were included, and for the subgroup of RCT evaluations and the subgroup of BA/EC evaluations. Thus, when participants were assigned in classes the mean effect size for these RCT evaluations were significantly associated with larger effect sizes ( Q b   =  13.590, df  = 1, p  < .001) for reductions in bullying victimization than RCT evaluations that assigned schools. Yet the difference between the mean effect sizes for BA/EC evaluations that assigned classes were not statistically significant ( Q b   =  3.359, df  = 1, p  = .067) than BA/EC evaluations that assigned schools to experimental conditions.

9.5.6. Conflict of interest

COI was a categorical moderator variable with three levels: high‐risk (H), low‐risk (L), and possible‐risk (P). Moderator analysis analogous to the ANOVA was conducted so as to assess the differences between evaluations on each level. Studies categorized as possible‐risk on COI variable were excluded from subgroup comparisons to establish the differences between evaluations that were clearly high‐risk and evaluations that were clearly low‐risk. Table  15 outlines the mean summary effects for each group for both bullying perpetration and bullying victimization outcomes.

Moderator analyses results: Conflict of interest

Note : Four studies and six studies were excluded from the present moderator analysis for perpetration and victimization outcome respectively as not enough information was available.

Moderator analyses found that the difference between high‐risk and low‐risk studies on COI variable was statistically significant for bullying perpetration outcomes under both the MVA model ( Q B  = 50.129; df  = 1; p  < .001) and the random effects model ( Q B  = 4.900; df  = 1; p  = .027). This suggests that evaluations considered to have high COI were associated with larger overall effect sizes for bullying perpetration. Similarly, high‐risk COI studies were significantly associated with slightly larger effect sizes for bullying victimization in comparison to low‐risk COI studies when compared under both the MVA model ( Q B  = 16.127; df  = 1; p  < .001) and the random effects model ( Q B  = 4.449; df  = 1; p  = .035).

9.5.7. Program specificity

The majority of evaluations included in our meta‐analysis were of highly specific intervention programs, that is, those that targeted bullying behaviors and no other outcomes. Consistently across computational model and both perpetration and victimization outcomes these subgroups were associated with the largest mean effect sizes. These results are presented in Table  16 . Additionally, highly specific programs were the only subgroup of evaluations that gave a statistically significant mean summary effect under both the MVA model and the random effects model for bullying victimization outcomes. In relation to bullying perpetration outcomes, the subgroup of evaluations that were coded as “medium” on the program specificity moderator were associated with a statistically significant mean effect size under the MVA model ( p  < .001) and the random effects model ( p  = .036).

Moderator analyses results: Program specificity

10. DISCUSSION

10.1. summary of main findings.

Overall, our updated meta‐analysis found that school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing both school‐bullying perpetration and victimization. For school‐bullying perpetration the weighted mean OR = 1.324 under the MVA model, or OR = 1.309 under a random‐effects model (RE) were associated with reductions of approximately 19–20%. 9 In comparison, the weighted mean ORs for bullying victimization outcomes were 1.248 and 1.242 under the MVA model and the random effects model respectively. These mean effect sizes correspond to an approximate reduction in bullying victimization of 15–16%. These results suggest that the included interventions were slightly more effective at reducing school‐bullying perpetration than school‐bullying victimization.

The results of this meta‐analysis are consistent with findings from most of previous reviews that indicate that antibullying programs have a small but significant effect, with some variations in overall results being attributable to methodological differences in inclusion and exclusion criteria (Ttofi et al.,  2014 ). Our mean effect sizes are also consistent with the earlier review (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ), although the differences further outline that moderator variables such as methodological design may be responsible for variability. For example, the weighted mean effect sizes for both bullying perpetration and bullying victimization outcomes estimated in the earlier Campbell report were larger than those estimated in the present report.

Yet, we included publication year as a categorical moderator variable in the present analysis. We found that more recent studies (i.e., those that were not included by Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ) were significantly different to studies that were included in the earlier review. Namely, recent studies were actually associated with significantly larger effect sizes for both bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes (see Section 8.5.3).

Therefore, as we excluded studies considered to have utilized less scientifically rigorous methodological designs this may explain the differences in the weighted mean effect sizes. Specifically, we excluded evaluations conducted using “other experimental‐control designs,” described in the earlier review as evaluations in which participants were assigned to experimental and control conditions but bullying outcomes were only measured after implementation of the intervention. Thus, attributing any change in behaviors to the intervention is potentially risky because there may be other reasons why a positive effect of the intervention was observed. For example, the experimental and control groups were not comparable at baseline, but this remains unknown as no measure of bullying was obtained.

Thus, the inclusion of these less methodologically rigorous evaluations may explain why the weighted mean effects sizes reported in the earlier review were larger than those reported in the current report, but our moderator analysis found a contradictory pattern. The following sections of this report will aim to discuss the findings obtained by our moderator analyses and also the strengths and limitations of the current analysis and potential avenues for future research. The heterogeneity in this meta‐analysis was very large for both bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. This may suggest that there was a wide range of effects across programs and we may not be able to explain differences using moderator analysis.

10.2. Moderator analyses

10.2.1. evaluation method.

Under both the MVA and random effects models, evaluations conducted using age cohort designs were identified to be, collectively, the most effective, or at least associated with the largest mean effect sizes. This is consistent with Farrington and Ttofi's ( 2009 ) review. This methodological design was first introduced as an evaluation design for the OBPP (Olweus,  1991 ). This approach has been criticized for the potential threats to internal validity, history and testing effects (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 , p. 15). It has been suggested that this design avoids the threats of aging and maturation effects, as individuals within the same school act as a control group for same‐aged experimental participants (Olweus,  2005a ). However, this design is vulnerable to cross‐contamination between experimental and control participants which would impact the overall effectiveness. Notably, intervention researchers have tested the OBPP with other methodological designs (e.g., Bauer et al.,  2007 ) which resulted in smaller effects.

Interestingly, the pattern between RCTs and BA/EC designs was less clear. In relation to bullying victimization outcomes, evaluations using BA/EC designs appear to be more effective than evaluations using RCT designs. However, for bullying perpetration outcomes, evaluations using RCT designs appear to be more effective than evaluations that utilized BA/EC designs. Further research is needed to understand these effects. However, the nature of these analyses is correlational and the differences between effect sizes are marginal. Thus, no concrete conclusion can be drawn in relation to the association between randomized and nonrandomized quasi experimental designs and effect size in the present context.

10.2.2. Unit of allocation/randomization

In theory, RCTs are the best method of evaluation of interventions because random allocation ensures that any observed differences between experimental and control groups occurs as a result of experimental manipulation, thus giving the best possible internal validity (Farrington,  1983 ,  2003 ). However, the unit of random allocation can have an impact on internal validity. For example, we assume that individuals are randomly assigned to experimental and control conditions, so that RCT designs adequately account for the random variation that occurs in real‐world research (Weisburd,  2003 ).

However, in practice, evaluations of antibullying programs may be more likely to assign groups of individuals, for example in terms of classrooms or schools, to experimental conditions rather than individual students. This is true for both randomized (e.g., classrooms, Chaux et al.,  2016 ; or schools, Espelage et al.,  2015 ) and nonrandomized (e.g., classrooms, Ortega‐Ruiz et al.,  2012 ; or schools, Rawana et al.,  2011 ) methodologies. When this is the case, we need larger numbers to ensure adequate statistical conclusion validity and avoid issues of selection effects and differential attrition (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ). There was a lot of variation in the unit of allocation in our primary studies, which may explain why we did not find that one methodological design was more effective than another.

Moreover, the majority of included evaluations did not use the same unit for allocation and analysis, thus, posing a threat to our results. We approach the results therefore with caution, favouring more conservative estimates. Furthermore, the relationship between the unit of randomization/allocation moderator variable and the effect sizes for bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes was unclear. Whether or not the differences between subgroups of evaluations that assigned classes or schools to experimental conditions were statistically significant or not depended on the computational model used and the bullying outcome in question. For bullying perpetration, the differences between studies based on unit of allocation were not statistically significant for randomized and nonrandomized studies. For bullying victimization outcomes, studies where classes were the unit of allocation were associated with the largest effect sizes when all designs where included and for randomized evaluations, but not for nonrandomized evaluations, separately.

Risk of bias analysis also found that a large number of RCT studies were categorized as being high risk for allocation‐related items on the EPOC tool. Therefore, the differences observed between primary evaluations in our meta‐analysis may be due to the observation that largely the unit of allocation and the unit of analysis were not the same in primary studies. However, further analysis and investigation is needed to better understand these results.

10.2.3. Location of intervention

Overall, the results of our meta‐analysis are consistent with previous findings and show that school‐based antibullying programs have a modest but significant effect in reducing bullying behaviors. However, our meta‐analysis included evaluations of antibullying programs from a wide range of countries and specific intervention programs, far more than previous meta‐analyses (e.g., Cantone et al.,  2015 ; Chalamandaris & Piette,  2015 ; Evans et al.,  2014 ; Jiménez‐Barbero et al.,  2012 ,  2016 ). As a result, the results of this meta‐analysis are robust and have implications for bullying research globally.

Our analysis identifies that antibullying programs worldwide are effective in reducing school‐bullying perpetration and victimization by significant amounts. Moreover, evaluations in different countries appear to vary in effectiveness. In Greece, where evaluations included in our meta‐analysis were associated with the largest effect sizes, school‐bullying perpetration behaviors were reduced by approximately 40%. Evaluations conducted in the Norway, Italy and the United States were also effective in reducing bullying perpetration by approximately 21–25%.

Antibullying programs implemented and evaluated in Italy were associated with the largest reduction in school‐bullying victimization in our meta‐analysis, with the odds ratio effect size corresponding to an approximate reduction of 31%. Moreover, evaluations conducted in Spain and Norway reduced school‐bullying victimization by approximately 28% and 23%, respectively. Evaluations conducted in Finland, Germany and the UK were also significantly effective, although less so, reducing school‐bullying victimization by approximately 8–12%.

There are many potential explanations for the differences in effectiveness observed between countries. For example, definitions of school‐bullying, and behaviors that constitute bullying, differ between countries. Previous research conducted by Smith et al. (2000) showed that school‐bullying is perceived differently across different countries and cultures and this may explain variability in bullying reporting. Definitions of school bullying, and behaviors that constitute bullying, differ between countries. For example, Smith et al. ( 2016 ) showed that school bullying in Eastern cultures manifests more often as exclusion or isolation of an individual victim. In comparison, school bullying in Western cultures comprises a wider range of physical, verbal and relational forms of aggression.

Our meta‐analysis included several examples of cases where the same intervention program was evaluated in different countries (e.g., KiVa program in Finland (Kärnä et al.,  2013 ) and in Italy (Nocentini & Menesini, 2016)). While societal practices, educational systems, and individual lifestyles may differ greatly, some argue that there may be some support for the cross‐national applicability of specific intervention programs. However, there is a current lack of existing research comparing the effectiveness of specific interventions in specific countries.

Previous research has indicated that are also cultural differences in bullying behaviors among adolescents (e.g., Smith et al.,  2016 ). As such, an antibullying program to reduce these behaviors may be impacted by these differences. This is particularly evident when we observe the variations in effect sizes for the OBPP (Olweus,  1993 ) and the KiVa antibullying program. These programs may be the most well‐known antibullying programs that are commercially available, and as such as the only examples in our review of interventions evaluated in completely different locations.

The OBPP program was originally designed and implemented in Norway, and it is therefore not surprising that the OBPP program appears to be effective in reducing both school‐bullying perpetration and victimization when evaluated in Norway, compared to evaluations in the United States (see Table  13 ). While the program was still significantly effective in the United States, the percentage decrease in school‐bullying perpetration was roughly 25% and in school‐bullying victimization was roughly 11%. These figures are lesser in comparison to the decreases in bullying behaviors seen in Norwegian evaluations (35% perpetration; 29% victimization). These differences could be attributed to different evaluation methodologies (see Gaffney et al., 2019), however, they most likely reflect cultural and societal differences between youth in Norway and youth in the United States.

Interestingly, the opposite is observed with the KiVa program. When KiVa was evaluated in Finnish samples, the program was effective in reducing school‐bullying perpetration by approximately 4–5% and school‐bullying victimization by approximately 6% (Kärnä et al.,  2011a ,  2011b ,  2013 ). However, when evaluated in Italian primary and secondary schools, the effect sizes were much larger. Nocentini and Mensini (2016) found that KiVa was effective in reducing school‐bullying perpetration by approximately 15–20% and school‐bullying victimization by approximately 25%.

In the case of KiVa, each of the evaluations used the same methodology (i.e., RCT), but varied greatly in the sample size. Thus, further research is needed to explain why some interventions (e.g., OBPP or KiVa) appear to be more effective in some samples compared to others. The programs are still effective, but the variation in effect size could be attributable to a number of different methodological and implementation factors that warrant further exploration.

10.2.4. Intervention program

Following this logic, we also explored the effectiveness of the specific antibullying programs. Out of the four most widely disseminated antibullying programs included in our review (i.e., KiVA, NoTrap!, OBPP, ViSC), the OBPP was collectively the most effective in reducing school bullying perpetration of these. Across 11 evaluations, the OBPP reduced bullying perpetration by approximately 26%, which was larger than any other widely disseminated program.

In relation to school‐bullying victimization outcomes, the NoTrap! program was the most effective, reducing victimization by around 37%. NoTrap! also reduced bullying perpetration by a considerable amount, approximately 22%, but this effect was not statistically significant. The KiVA program, significantly reduced school bullying perpetration by approximately 9% and school bullying victimization by approximately 11%. The ViSC program was the only program to increase bullying perpetration (by roughly 4%) and bullying victimization (by roughly 4%) although these effects were not statistically significant.

Another moderator we used to code differences between included evaluations was the specificity of the intervention program. In other words, we evaluated each intervention program on how specific it related to bullying behaviors. Unsurprisingly, our findings suggest that antibullying programs gave the largest overall effect sizes. While the significance of the differences between subgroups was not computed due to the large discrepancies between the numbers of evaluations included in each subgroup.

However, our inclusion criteria for the current report was strictly concerned with school‐bullying intervention programs and behavioral outcomes of bullying. As such, we may have overlooked effective programs that only included nonbehavioral outcomes of bullying (e.g., attitudes toward bullying, awareness of bullying) or other problem behaviors (e.g., peer aggression or victimization, mental health issues, juvenile delinquency, etc.) that occur among young people in schools. Changes in these behaviors may also impact bullying, either directly or indirectly, yet, more research is needed to understand this potential effect. Most obvious in the present report is how programs that target specifically school‐bullying may impact cyber‐bullying, and vice versa, given the significant overlap in the prevalence of these behaviors (Baldry et al.,  2017 ).

Further research is also needed to better understand specifically “what works” in these “specific interventions.” In the previous review, (Farrington and Ttofi  2009 ; Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ) conducted detailed coding of interventions and evaluations and analyzed how effect sizes varied between components and features of primary studies. For example, parent training, playground supervision, and more intense and longer programs were significantly correlated with larger reductions in bullying perpetration (Ttofi & Farrington,  2011 ). Moreover, several intervention components were associated with larger reductions in bullying victimization (e.g., videos, disciplinary methods, co‐operative group work and more intense and longer programs). Therefore, an important avenue for future research is to assess the differences in effectiveness of antibullying programs according to specific intervention components across the 100 evaluations included in our meta‐analysis. Such research would have important implications for policy and the development of future antibullying programs.

Additionally, it appears that since 2009 several large‐scale antibullying programs have been implemented and evaluated (e.g., KiVa; Kärnä et al.,  2013 ; NoTrap!; Menesini et al.,  2012 ; Palladino et al.,  2016 ). Because there is typically more information available on the specific components of these programs, we may be able to code more specific details in future analyses. For example, many studies may fit the criteria for “parent training,” but there is a significant difference between the intensity of parental involvement. For example, some studies may include parents merely by sending letters home with participant children (e.g., Brown et al.,  2011 ), while others include parents more actively by holding information evenings or requiring children to complete take‐home tasks with parental involvement (e.g., Berry & Hunt,  2009 ; Domino,  2013 ).

Earlier research highlighted how varying levels of implementation of each intervention component may explain variability in intervention outcomes (Bloom et al.,  2003 ). Interestingly, a narrative review by Smith et al. ( 2003 ) reported that although 14 whole‐school antibullying programs obtained modest effects overall, those that monitored implementation obtained twice the mean effects on self‐reported rates of bullying and victimization than those that did not monitor implementation. Thus, additional analyses are required to better understand specifically what works in existing antibullying programs and the underlying mechanisms of behavioral change

10.2.5. COI and publication type

Possibly the most conclusive results from our moderator analyses were observed in relation to COI and publication type. First, across both computational models and outcomes, studies that were categorized as being high‐risk for COI were associated with significantly larger reductions in bullying perpetration and victimization. Second, under the MVA model of meta‐analysis, non‐peer‐reviewed evaluations were associated with significantly larger reductions in both bullying perpetration and victimization outcomes. However, the same results were not observed under the random effects.

We examined COI in terms of the involvement of the program developer in the evaluation. Our results may indicate possible sources of biases. For example, it may be that when the individual, or team, that are credited with developing an antibullying program are also involved in the evaluation of said intervention, biases such as confirmation bias may impact the results. However, it may not be a perceivably “negative” source of bias. Perhaps, when the program developer is involved in the implementation of the program, the intervention is simply delivered better and more effectively. There are a number of other factors that could also be affected and in turn impact the effect size, such as teacher and staff efficacy and motivation to participate the in the program.

There are more sophisticated measures of COI (e.g., Eisner et al.,  2012 ) that include elements such as whether or not the evaluator could potentially benefit financially from the intervention program. Further indicators of COI are thus needed to better understand the impact on evaluation results. For example, our findings in relation to COI and larger effect sizes may be explained as: evaluations in which the program developer was included appear to be more effective because of the expertise and intricate knowledge of the developer. Therefore, the results may reflect differences in the quality of program implementation rather than troublesome biases. Additional research is needed.

10.3. Limitations and avenues for future research

Like most meta‐analyses, the current report is largely limited by the lack of understanding as to what is the “true effect.” When comparing mean effect sizes between moderators for example, it is difficult to determine the validity of the result. Throughout our discussion of result we discuss that one subgroup of studies was associated with larger or smaller effect sizes than another, and the statistical significance of these differences. Thus, we avoid saying studies in subgroup A (e.g., evaluations conducted in Greece) are more effective than studies in subgroup B (e.g., evaluations conducted in Italy). Due to the correlational nature of our moderator analyses we cannot make causal inferences. In addition to this limitation, and those previously discussed (Section  9.2 ), the following section of this report discusses some further limitations.

10.3.1. Measurement of bullying

Experts in the area of school‐bullying research have outlined how there still remain issues of comparability in the assessment of school‐bullying perpetration and victimization (Volk et al.,  2017 ). Studies included in the present meta‐analysis used a wide variety of quantitative measures of school‐bullying behaviors, including self‐report measures (e.g., the Revised Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire—Olweus,  1986 ,  1996 ), or peer‐report measures (e.g., the Participant Role Questionnaire—Salmivalli et al.,  1996 ). One issue that arises is that the timeframe within which participants are required to indicate the frequency of bullying can vary greatly. One scale may ask about bullying experiences within the last 3 months, while another may ask about ever having experienced, or participated in, school‐bullying. Moreover, included studies utilized a mixture of continuous or dichotomous measures of school‐bullying, and the cut‐off points used to categorize someone as either a bully, victim, or not‐involved also varied.

Furthermore, the majority of evaluations included in our analysis reported bullying outcomes at different time points, largely, before implementation, after implementation, with a possible additional follow‐up time point. However, we computed effect sizes using measures of bullying taken before implementation and immediately post implementation of the intervention. Therefore, we cannot generalize results to the long‐term effectiveness of antibullying programs, or any potential influence of dose‐response effect. Future research should aim to examine the longitudinal effectiveness of interventions to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization in the long‐term.

When conducting our systematic searches for the present review, we did not set restrictions based on measurement issues, other than including quantitative measures of school‐bullying behaviors. However, types of reports, for example, could influence the overall effectiveness effect size. This may possibly explain why our meta‐analysis found that programs are more effective in reducing bullying perpetration outcomes. For example, if programs are concerned with raising awareness about bullying and the associated negative impact on victims, participants who reported bullying perpetration before the intervention may be less likely to self‐report bullying behaviors after completing the program. As a result, the intervention may be perceived as being effective, but the change in reports of bullying may have been a result of social desirability responding (He et al.,  2015 ; Rigby & Johnson,  2006 ). Conversely, raising awareness on the negative impact of school bullying may lead to increased reporting of victimization due to sensitization effects (Stevens et al.,  2000 ). Notably, sensitization effects due to raised awareness may affect not only self‐report data but also peer nomination data and teacher reports (Smith et al.,  2003 , p. 597). Therefore, future research could aim to examine whether the style of report used, differing cut‐off points and varying timeframes affect estimations of intervention effectiveness.

10.3.2. Cyberbullying behaviors

Another key limitation of the present review is the omission of cyberbullying behaviors. Prominent researchers in the area have argued that cyberbullying behaviors do not warrant a completely separate line of study, because of the significant overlap between offline and online bullying (Olweus & Limber,  2017 ). A recent meta‐analysis of cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs found that, out of studies assessing various facets of cyberbullying, a large number were concerned with this overlap (Gaffney et al., 2019). The Gaffney et al. (2019) meta‐analysis concluded that anticyberbullying programs were effective in reducing cyberbullying perpetration by roughly 9–15% and cyberbullying victimization by roughly 14–15%. As illustrated in that other review, there is a need for future research to assess the effectiveness of intervention programs that target both online and offline bullying concurrently. As a result of the significant overlap (e.g., Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2015), it is important for policy makers, researchers, and program developers to know whether or not these forms of aggressive behaviors should be targeted together or individually. Future research should aim to examine the effectiveness of programs designed to reduce school‐bullying on cyberbullying outcomes, and vice versa. Additional analysis to examine the differences between programs that target offline and online behaviors concurrently in terms of effectiveness to reduce both school‐ and cyber‐bullying is also needed.

10.3.3. Models of meta‐analyses

The current report presents findings using two computational models of meta‐analyses: the random effects model and the multiplicative variance adjustment model. While, the random effects model is often suggested as the preferred model for meta‐analyses in social sciences, for reasons already discussed (Section  7.3 ), this approach is also limited. However, even though many meta‐analyses in medical sciences (e.g., Ayieko et al.,  2014 ; Dorjee et al.,  2018 ; Woolf‐King et al.,  2013 ) have used the MVA model as an alternative method of accounting for between‐study heterogeneity in weighted mean effect sizes, this model is yet to be widely accepted in behavioral sciences. A number of recent publications (e.g., Portnoy & Farrington,  2015 ; Zych et al.,  2019 ) have begun to use the MVA model.

It is evident in the current report that the results are influenced by the computational model used. The overall mean effect sizes for bullying perpetration and victimization were not that different under both models but the results of moderator analyses were greatly influenced by how we accounted for the between‐study heterogeneity. Further research is needed in order to examine the reasons for this and also evaluate how best to choose an appropriate computational model when conducting a meta‐analysis.

10.4. Concluding remarks

This report presents an updated systematic and meta‐analytical review of the effectiveness of school‐bullying intervention and prevention programs. Overall, our review found that school‐based antibullying programs are effective in reducing both bullying perpetration and bullying victimization, and that effect sizes can vary according to several moderator variables. However, further research is needed to better understand the reasons for variation in observed effect sizes. Research is needed to investigate the specific components of antibullying programs that work best to reduce bullying behaviors. The results of our meta‐analysis have important implications for policy and the development of future antibullying programs, but future research should aim to better understand the effective mechanisms in bullying intervention and prevention.

11. TECHNICAL APPENDICES

11.1. calculating the before‐after intervention effect.

Williams et al. ( 2015 ) evaluated the effectiveness of the Start Strong program based on students' self‐reported experiences of bullying victimization. The primary study found that, at baseline, 23% of participants in the experimental group ( N  = 717) reported bullying victimization, while 23% of participants in the control group ( N  = 800) also reported bullying victimization at baseline. Hence, the baseline OR was calculated as follows (Table  17 ):

Data used to estimate baseline odds ratio

Thus, the OR before  = 0.999, Ln OR before  = −0.002, and var Ln OR before  = 0.015. Williams et al. ( 2015 ) report that after implementation of the Start Strong program, bullying victimization was reported by 28% of experimental participants and 34% of control participants. Accordingly, the posttest OR was calculated as follows (Table  18 ):

Data used to estimate postintervention odds ratio

Thus, the OR after  = 1.323; Ln OR after  = 0.28; and var Ln OR after  = 0.013. Employing these figures, the ln OR for the intervention effect of the Start Strong program was calculated as:

The ln OR change is computed as the difference between the before and after effect size and the variance of this new estimate is adjusted by multiplying the sum of the variances of before and after variances by 0.75. This is an approximation of the assumed correlation between before and after effect sizes. The ln OR change and the SE of ln OR change were then entered into CMA as an estimation of the intervention effect.

11.2. Multiplicative variance adjustment

In the present meta‐analysis, the summary effect size estimated for bullying perpetration was OR = 1.324 with 95% confidence intervals of 1.298–1.351 under a fixed effects model. The effect size in the MVA model is the same as the effect size in the fixed effects model. The variance of the effect size in the MVA model is calculated as follows:

Therefore, in the above example of the summary effect size for bullying perpetration outcomes, the FE var is 0.000104. Therefore, with Q  = 458.555 and df  = 109, the MVA adjustment for fixed effects is 0.02098, calculated as:

Therefore, the adjusted standard error is 0.0209. In this example thus, the MVA fixed effect is OR = 1.324, and the 95% confidence intervals are 1.271–1.380.

11.3. Odds ratio to percentage conversion

The conversion from weighted mean odds ratio to percentage value is also described in the previous Campbell report (see Farrington & Ttofi, 2009 ). The formula involves assuming equal allocation of participants to experimental and control conditions and that the % of bullies and/or victims was lesser in the experimental condition than in the control condition (as supported by our overall positive mean effect size).

For example, if there are 200 participants in each experimental condition and approximately 30% of participants report bullying victimization in the control condition and 25% victims in the experimental condition, the numbers of victims and nonvictims would be as follows: (Table  19 ).

Data used to convert odds ratio to percentage

Therefore using the previously described formula for estimating an odds ratio, the following data would correspond to an odds ratio of 1.286 (i.e., [150 × 60]/[140 × 50]). Moreover, the percentage decrease would be approximately 16.67% (i.e., (10/60) × 100).

Using this basic formula, we can manipulate the % and number of victims in each experimental condition in order to achieve a odds ratio that corresponds to our weighted mean effect size (i.e., MVA: OR = 1.324 and RE: OR = 1.309 for bullying perpetration; MVA: OR = 1.248 and RE: OR = 1.242 for bullying victimization). Using the n values that give the closest possible mean effect size we can thus estimate the corresponding percentage reduction in either bullying perpetration or victimization outcomes.

APPENDIX A. 

Appendix: full search syntax, database: web of science.

Bully* AND Intervention AND Evaluation

Anti‐Bullying AND School AND Program* AND Evaluation

Anti‐Bully* AND Program* AND Outcome

Bully‐victim AND Prevention AND Evaluation

Bully* AND School AND Intervention

Bully* AND School AND Prevention

Database: Scopus

Bully* AND School AND Program*

Bully* AND School AND Evaluation

Bully* AND School AND Intervention AND Evaluation

Bully* AND School AND Prevention AND Evaluation

Anti‐bullying AND Program* AND Evaluation

Database: National Criminal Justice Reference Service

Bully* AND Prevention AND Evaluation

Anti‐bullying AND Program* AND Effect*

Database: PsycINFO

Bully* AND Intervention AND Program* AND Evaluation

Bully* AND Prevention AND Program* AND Effect*

Database: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register

Bully* AND Intervention AND Program*

Bully* AND Prevention AND Program AND Evaluation

Database: British Education Index

Bully* AND Prevention AND Program* AND Evaluation

Bully* AND Intervention AND Program* AND Effect*

Database: Embase

Database: medline, database: eric & criminal justice abstracts.

www.scholar.google.co.uk

APPENDIX B. 

Appendix: risk of bias results for included studies.

Note : H, hig risk, score 3; L, low risk, score 0; U, unclear risk, score 2. Risk of bias score is estimated as sum of scores on individual risk of bias items.

Abbreviations: AC, Allocation concealment; AS, Allocation sequence; BC, Baseline Equivalence on Characteristics; BE, Baseline Equivalence of Outcome; BOA, Blind Outcome Assessment; CP, Contamination Protection; ID, Incomplete Data; SOR, Selected Outcome Reporting.

Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying perpetration and victimization: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 17 , e1143. 10.1002/cl2.1143 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Systematic review

Plain language summary on the Campbell website

1 The authors regret that more detailed information concerning specific combinations of keywords and databases searched as per the Campbell MECCIR reporting standards. This information is held on restricted access computers and due to COVID‐19 pandemic, the closure of University buildings, this data could not be retrieved.

2 Web of Science Core Collection database.

3 Unfortunately detailed information about the datas of searches cannot be provided for this review, contrary to MECCIR R35.

4 We were unable to double code in this review. However, as some studies were included in the present review and an earlier review (Farrington & Ttofi,  2009 ), a proportion of the studies were double‐coded.

5 A worked example is provided in Technical Appendix 10.1.

6 Calculated as: total number of students/number of classrooms.

7 A worked example of this adjustment is provided in Technical Appendix 10.2.

8 Moderator analyses under the MVA model will be greatly affected by the presence of very large studies in the meta‐analysis. Unfortunately, we were not able to follow recommendations made by the methods editor to windsorize weights or conduct sensitivity analyses by removing these large studies. Due to the COVID‐19 pandemic the software to carry out these tests was not available to us. Thus, the reader should consider the impact of large studies when interepting the results of moderator analyses under the MVA model.

9 The procedure used to estimate approximate percentage values for weighted mean odds ratios is provided in Technical Appendix 10.3.

REFERENCES TO INCLUDED STUDIES

• Alsaker, F. D. (2004). Bernese program against victimization to kindergarten and elementary schools. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 289–306). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alsaker, F. D., & Valkanover, S. (2001). Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In Juvonen J. & Graham S. (Eds.), Peer harassment in school (pp. 175–195). Guilford. [ Google Scholar ]
• Andreou, E., Didaskalou, E., & Vlachou, A. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness of a curriculum‐based anti‐bullying intervention program in Greek primary schools . Educational Psychology , 27 , 693–711. [ Google Scholar ]
• Avşar, F., & Alkaya, S. A. (2017). The effectiveness of assertiveness training for school‐aged children on bullying and assertiveness level . Journal of Pediatric Nursing , 36 , 186–190. 10.1016/j.pedn.2017.06.020 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldry, A. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Evaluation of an intervention program for the reduction of bullying and victimization in schools . Aggressive Behavior , 30 , 1–15. 10.1002/ab.20000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Battey, G.J.L. (2009). Can bullies become buddies? Evaluation of and theoretical support for an experiential education bully prevention curriculum with seventh grade students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (UMI No. 3348633).
• Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2007). The effectiveness of the Olweus bullying prevention program in public middle schools: A controlled trial . Journal of Adolescent Health , 40 , 266–274. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beran, T., & Shapiro, B. (2005). Evaluation of an anti‐bullying program: Student reports of knowledge and confidence to manage bullying . Canadian Journal of Education , 28 ( 4 ), 700–717. [ Google Scholar ]
• Beran, T., Tutty, L., & Steinrath, G. (2004). An evaluation of a bullying prevention program for elementary schools . Canadian Journal of School Psychology , 19 ( 1/2 ), 99–116. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berry, K., & Hunt, C. J. (2009). Evaluation of an intervention program for anxious adolescent boys who are bullied at school . Journal of Adolescent Health , 45 , 376–382. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.04.023 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonell, C., Fletcher, A., Fitzgerald‐Yau, N., Hale, D., Allen, E., Elbourne, D., Jones, R., Bond, L., Wiggins, M., Miners, A., Legood, R., Scott, S., Christie, D., & Viner, R. (2015). Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): A pilot randomised controlled trial . Health Technology Assessment , 19 ( 53 ), 1–110. 10.3310/hta19530 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boulton, M. J., & Flemington, I. (1996). The effects of a short video intervention on secondary school pupils' involvement in definitions of and attitudes towards bullying . School Psychology International , 17 , 331–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brown, E. C., Low, S., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school‐randomized controlled trial of Steps to Respect: A bullying prevention program . School Psychology Review , 40 ( 3 ), 423–443. 10.1037/e734362011-045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bull, H. D., Schultze, M., & Scheithauer, H. (2009). School‐based prevention of bullying and relational aggression: The fairplayer.manual . European Journal of Developmental Science , 3 ( 3 ), 312–317. [ Google Scholar ]
• Busch, V., De Leeuw, R. J. J., & Schrijvers, A. J. P. (2013). Results of a multibehavioral health‐promoting school pilot intervention in a Dutch secondary school . Journal of Adolescent Health , 52 ( 4 ), 400–406. 10.1016/j.adohealth.2012.07.008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chaux, E., Velásquez, A. M., Schultze‐Krumbholz, A., & Scheithauer, H. (2016). Effects of the cyberbullying prevention program Media Heroes ( Medienhelden ) on traditional bullying . Aggressive Behavior , 42 ( 2 ), 157–165. 10.1002/ab.21637 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cissner, A. B., & Ayoub, L. H. (2014). Building healthy teen relationships: An evaluation of the Fourth R curriculum with middle school students in the Bronx . U.S.A: Center for Court Innovation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ciucci, E., & Smorti, A. (1998). Il fenomeno delle pretonenze nella scuola: Problemi e prospettive di intervention [The phenomenon of bullying in school: Problems and prospects for intervention] . Psichiatria dell'infanzia e dell'adolescenza , 65 , 147–157. [ Google Scholar ]
• Connolly, J., Josephson, W., Schnoll, J., Simkins‐Strong, E., Pepler, D., MacPherson, A., Weiser, J., Moran, M., & Jiang, D. (2015). Evaluation of a youth‐led program for preventing bullying, sexual harassment, and dating aggression in middle schools . Journal of Early Adolescence , 35 ( 3 ), 403–434. 10.1177/0272431614535090 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross, D., Hall, M., Hamilton, G., Pintabona, Y., & Erceg, E. (2004). Australia: The friendly schools project. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 187–210). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CB09780511584466.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cross, D., Monks, H., Hall, M., Shaw, T., Pintabona, Y., Erceg, E., Hamilton, G., Roberts, C., Waters, S., & Lester, L. (2011). Three‐year results of the Friendly School whole‐of‐school intervention on children's bullying behaviour . British Educational Research Journal , 37 ( 1 ), 105–129. 10.1080/01411920903420024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeRosier, M. E. (2004). Building relationships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of a school‐based social skills group intervention . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 33 ( 1 ), 196–201. 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3301_18 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeRosier, M. E., & Marcus, S. R. (2005). Building friendships and combating bullying: Effectiveness of S.S. GRIN at one‐year follow‐up . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 34 ( 1 ), 140–150. 10.1207/s15374424jccp3401_13 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Domino, M. (2011). The impact of Take the LEAD on school bullying among middle school youth (Doctoral Dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3434870).
• Domino, M. (2013). Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying . Journal of School Health , 83 ( 6 ), 430–437. 10.1111/josh.12047 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elledge, L. C., Cavell, T. A., Ogle, N. T., & Newgent, R. A. (2010). School‐based mentoring as selective prevention for bullied children: A preliminary test . Journal of Primary Prevention , 31 , 171–187. 10.1007/s10935-010-0215-7 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ertesvag, S. K., & Vaaland, G. S. (2007). Prevention and reduction of behavioural problems in school: An evaluation of the Respect program . Educational Psychology , 27 , 713–736. [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2013). The impact of a middle school program to reduce aggression, victimization, and sexual violence . Journal of Adolescent Health , 53 ( 2 ), 180–186. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.02.021 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Polanin, J. R., & Brown, E. C. (2015). Clinical trial of Second Step© middle‐school program: Impact on aggression & victimization . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 37 , 52–63. 10.1016/j.appdev.2014.11.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Evers, K. E., Poskiparta, J. O., van Marter, D. F., Johnson, J. L., & Prochaska, J. M. (2007). Transtheoretical‐based bullying prevention effectiveness trials in middle schools and high schools . Educational Research , 49 , 397–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farmer, V. L., Williams, S. M., Mann, J. I., Schofield, G., McPhee, J. C., & Taylor, R. W. (2017). Change of school playground environment on bullying: A randomized controlled trial . Pediatrics , 139 ( 5 ), e20163072. 10.1542/peds.2016-3072 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fekkes, M., Pijpers, F. I. M., & Verloove‐Vanhorick, P. (2006). Effects of antibullying school program on bullying and health complaints . Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 160 ( 6 ), 638–644. 10.1001/archpedi.160.6.638 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fekkes, M., van de Sande, M. C. E., Gravesteijn, J. C., Pannebakker, F. D., Buijs, G. J., Diekstra, R. F. W., & Kocken, P. L. (2016). Effects of the Dutch Skills for Life program on the health behaviour, bullying, and suicidal ideation of secondary school students . Health Education , 116 ( 1 ), 2–15. 10.1108/HE-05-2014-0068 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finn, K.O'K. (2009). An evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (3343406).
• Fonagy, P., Twemlow, S. W., Vernberg, E. M., Nelson, J. M., Dill, E. J., Little, T. D., & Sargent, J. A. (2009). A cluster randomized controlled trial of child‐focused psychiatric consultation and a school systems‐focused intervention to reduce aggression . The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 50 ( 5 ), 607–616. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02025.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox, C., & Boulton, M. (2003). Evaluating the effectiveness of a social skills training (SST) program for victims of bullying . Educational Research , 45 , 231–247. [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey, K., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., van Schoiack Edstrom, L., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program . Developmental Psychology , 41 , 479–491. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garaigordobil, M., & Martínez‐Valderrey, V. (2015). Effects of Cyberprogram 2.0 on “face‐to‐face” bullying, cyberbullying and empathy . Psciothema , 27 ( 1 ), 45–51. 10.7334/psciotherma2014.78 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gini, G., Belli, B., & Casagrande, M. (2003). Le prepotenze a scuola: Una esperienza di ricerca‐intervento antibullisimo [Bullying at school: An experience of research‐intervention against bullying] . Eta Evolutiva , 76 , 33–45. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gollwitzer, M., Eisenbach, K., Atria, M., Strohmeier, D., & Banse, R. (2006). Evaluation of aggression‐reducing effects of the “Viennese Social Competence Training” . Swiss Journal of Psychology , 65 , 125–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrick, C. (2012). An investigation into the effectiveness of an anti‐bullying campaign (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Nottingham, UK.
• Holen, S., Waaktaar, T., Lervåg, A., & Ystgaard, M. (2013). Implementing a universal stress management program for young school children: Are there classroom climate or academic effects? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 57 ( 4 ), 420–444. 10.1080/00313831.2012.656320 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hunt, C. (2007). The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students . Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 12 ( 1 ), 21–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenson, J. M., Brisson, D., Bender, K. A., & Williford, A. P. (2013). Effects of the Youth Matters prevention program on patterns of bullying and victimization in elementary and middle school . Social Work Research , 37 ( 4 ), 361–372. 10.1093/swr/svt030 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenson, J. M., & Dieterich, W. A. (2007). Effects of a skill‐based prevention program on bullying and bully victimization among elementary school children . Prevention Science , 8 , 285–296. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jenson, J. M., Dieterich, W. A., Brisson, D., Bender, K. A., & Powell, A. (2010). Preventing childhood bullying: Findings and lessons from the Denver Public Schools trial . Research on Social Work Practice , 20 ( 5 ), 509–517. 10.1177/1049731509359186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Joronen, K., Konu, A., Rankin, H. S., & Astedt‐Kurki, P. (2011). An evaluation of a drama program to enhance social relationships and anti‐bullying at elementary school: A controlled study . Health Promotion International , 27 ( 1 ), 5–14. 10.1093/heapro/dar012 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ju, Y., Shuqiong, W., & Wenxin, Z. (2009). Intervention research on school bullying in primary schools . Frontiers of Education in China , 4 , 111–122. 10.1007/s11516-009-0007-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaljee, L., Zhang, L., Langhaug, L., Munjile, K., Tembo, S., Menon, A., Stanton, B., Li, X., & Malungo, J. (2017). A randomized‐controlled trial for the teachers' diploma programme on psychosocial care, support and protection in Zambian government primary schools . Psychology, Health, and Medicine , 22 ( 4 ), 381–392. 10.1080/13548503.2016.1153682 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Alanen, E., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa Antibullying Program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9 . Journal of Educational Psychology , 105 ( 2 ), 535–551. 10.1037/a0030417 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Alanen, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2011a). Going to scale: A nonrandomized nationwide trial of the KiVa antibullying Program for Grades 1–9 . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 79 ( 6 ), 796–805. 10.1037/a0025740 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kärnä, A., Voeten, M., Little, T. D., Poskiparta, E., Kaljonen, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2011b). A large‐scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 4–6 . Child Development , 82 ( 1 ), 311–330. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01.557.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimber, B., Sandell, R., & Bremberg, S. (2008). Social and emotional training in Swedish classrooms for the promotion of mental health: Results from an effectiveness study in Sweden . Health Promotion International , 23 ( 2 ), 134–143. 10.1093/heapro/dam046 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knowler, C., & Frederickson, N. (2013). Effects of an emotional literacy intervention for students identified with bullying behaviour . Educational Psychology , 33 ( 7 ), 862–883. 10.1080/01443410.2013.785052 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger, L. M. (2010). The implementation of an anti‐bullying program to reduce bullying behaviours on elementary school buses (Doctoral dissertation). D'Youville College, Buffalo, NY (UMI 3441874).
• Li, K. K., Washburn, I., DuBois, D. L., Vuchinich, S., Ji, P., Brechling, V., Day, J., Beets, M. W., Acock, A. C., Berbaum, M., Snyder, F., & Flay, B. R. (2011). Effects of the Positive Action programme on problem behaviours in elementary school students: A matched‐pair randomised control trial in Chicago . Psychology and Health , 26 ( 2 ), 187–204. 10.1080/08870446.2011.531574 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Losey, R. A. (2009). An evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program's effectiveness in a high school setting (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
• Low, S., & Van Ryzin, M. (2014). The moderating effects of school climate on bullying prevention efforts . School Psychology Quarterly , 29 ( 3 ), 306–319. 10.1037/spq0000073 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin, F. D. F., Martinez, M., del, C. P. , & Tirado, J. L. A. (2005). Design, implementation and evaluation of a bullying prevention pilot program. [Spanish: Diseno, aplicacion y evaluacion de un Programa Piloto para la Prevencion del Maltrato entre companeros] . Revista Mexicana de Psicologia , 22 , 375–384. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLaughlin, L. P. (2009). The effect of cognitive behavioral therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy plus media on the reduction of bullying and victimization and the increase of empathy and bystander response in a bully prevention program for urban sixth‐grade students (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Toledo.
• Melton, G. B., Limber, S. P., Flerx, V., Nation, M., Osgood, W., Chambers, J., Henggeler, S., Cunningham, P., & Olweus, D. (1998). Violence among rural youth, Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, DC.
• Menard, S., & Grotpeter, J. K. (2014). Evaluation of Bully‐Proofing Your School as an elementary school antibullying intervention . Journal of School Violence , 13 ( 2 ), 188–209. 10.1080/15388220.2013.840641 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Menard, S., Grotpeter, J., Gianola, D., & O'Neal, M. (2008). Evaluation of Bully Proofing your school: Final report . Downloaded from the NCJRS http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221078.pdf
• Menesini, E., Codescasa, E., Benelli, B., & Cowie, H. (2003). Enhancing children's responsibility to take action against bullying: Evaluation of a befriending intervention in Italian middle schools . Aggressive Behavior , 29 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., & Palladino, B. E. (2012). Empowering students against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of an Italian peer‐led model . International Journal of Conflict and Violence , 6 ( 2 ), 314–320. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer, N., & Lesch, E. (2000). An analysis of the limitations of a behavioural programme for bullying boys from a sub‐economic environment . Southern African Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health , 12 ( 1 ), 59–69. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2015). KiVa antibullying program in Italy: Evidence of effectiveness in a randomized control trial . Prevention Science , 17 ( 8 ), 1012–1023. 10.1007/s11121-016-0690-z [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1992). Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In Peters R. D., McMahon R. J. & Quinsey V. L. (Eds.), Aggression and violence throughout the lifespan (pp. 100–125). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1993). Bully/victim problems among school children: Long‐term consequences and an effective intervention program. In Hodgins S. (Ed.), Mental disorder and crime (pp. 317–349). Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1994a). Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 35 , 1171–1190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1994b). Bullying at school: Basic facts and an effective intervention programme . Promotion and Education , 1 , 27–31. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1994c). Bullying at school: Long‐term outcome for the victims and an effective school‐based intervention program. In Huesmann L. R. (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 97–130). Plenum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1995). Peer abuse or bullying at school: Basic facts and a school‐based intervention programme . Prospects , 25 ( 1 ), 133–139. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1996a). Bullying or peer abuse in school: Intervention and prevention. In Davies G., Lloyd‐Bostock S., McMurran M. & Wilson C. (Eds.), Psychology, law, and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice (pp. 248–267). Walter de Gruyter. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1996b). Bullying at school: Knowledge base and effective intervention . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 784 , 265–276. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1996c). Bully/victim problems at school: Facts and effective intervention . Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems , 5 ( 1 ), 15–22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1997a). Bully/victim problems in school: Knowledge base and an effective intervention project . Irish Journal of Psychology , 18 , 170–190. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1997b). Bully/victim problems in schools: Facts and intervention . European Journal of Psychology of Education , 12 , 495–510. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1997c). Tackling peer victimization with a school‐based intervention program. In Fry D. P. & Bjorkqvist K. (Eds.), Cultural variation in conflict resolution: Alternatives to violence (pp. 215–232). Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (2004a). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13–36). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (2004b). Bullying at school: Prevalence estimation, a useful evaluation design, and a new national initiative in Norway . Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry Occasional Papers , 23 , 5–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (2005a). A useful evaluation design, and the effects of the Olweus bullying prevention program . Psychology, Crime and Law , 11 , 389–402. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Moore, A. M., & Milton, S. J. (2004). Ireland: The Donegal primary school antibullying project. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 275–288). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ortega‐Ruiz, R., Del Rey, R., & Casas, J. A. (2012). Knowing, building and living together on Internet and social networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program . International Journal of Conflict and Violence , 6 ( 2 ), 303–313. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostrov, J. M., Godleski, S. A., Kamper‐DeMarco, K. E., Blakely‐McClure, S. J., & Celenza, L. (2015). Replication and extension of the early childhood friendship project: Effects on physical and relational bullying . School Pyschology Review , 44 ( 4 ), 445–463. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pagliocca, P. M., Limber, S. P., & Hashima, P. (2007). Evaluation report for the Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program . Final report prepared for the Chula Vista Police Department.
• Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2012). Online and offline peer led models against bullying and cyberbullying . Psicothema , 24 ( 4 ), 634–639. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2016). Evidence‐based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials . Aggressive Behavior , 42 ( 2 ), 194–206. 10.1002/ab.21636 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pepler, D. J., Craig, W. M., O'Connell, P., Atlas, R., & Charach, A. (2004). Making a difference in bullying: Evaluation of a systemic school‐based program in Canada. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 125–140). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Polanin, M.K. (2015). Effects of cultural awareness training in conjunction with an established bullying prevention program (Doctoral Dissertation). Loyola University Chicago.
• Pryce, S., & Frederickson, N. (2013). Bullying behaviour, intentions and classroom ecology . Learning Environment Research , 16 , 183–199. 10.1007/s10984-013-9137-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahey, L., & Craig, W. M. (2002). Evaluation of an ecological program to reduce bullying in schools . Canadian Journal of Counselling , 36 , 281–295. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawana, J. S., Norwood, S. J., & Whitley, J. (2011). A mixed‐method evaluation of a strength‐based bullying prevention program . Canadian Journal of School Psychology , 26 ( 4 ), 283–300. 10.1177/0829573511423741 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rican, P., Ondrova, K., & Svatos, J. (1996). The effect of a short, intensive intervention upon bullying in four classes in a Czech town . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences , 794 , 399–400. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roland, E., Bru, E., Midthassel, U. V., & Vaaland, G. S. (2010). The Zero programme against bullying: Effects of the programme in the context of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying . Social Psychology of Education , 13 , 41–55. 10.1007/s11218-009-9096-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenbluth, B., Whitaker, D. J., Sanchez, E., & Valle, L. A. (2004). The Expect Respect Project: Preventing bullying and sexual harassment in US elementary schools. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 211–233). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., & Voeten, M. (2005). Anti‐bullying intervention: Implementation and outcome . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 75 , 465–487. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C., Kaukiainen, A., Voeten, M., & Sinisammal, M. (2004). Targeting the group as a whole: The Finnish anti‐bullying intervention. In Smith P. K., Pepler D. & Rigby K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 251–275). Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapouna, M., Wolke, D., Vannini, N., Watson, S., Woods, S., Schneider, W., Enz, S., Hall, L., Paiva, A., André, E., Dautenhahn, K., & Aylett, R. (2010). Virtual learning intervention to reduce bullying victimization in primary school: A controlled trial . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 51 ( 1 ), 104–112. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02137.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• da Silva, J., de Oliveira, W., Braga, I., Farias, M., da Silva Lizzi, E., Gonçalves, M., Pereira, B., & Silva, M. (2016). The effects of a skill‐based intervention for victims of bullying in Brazil . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 13 , 1042. 10.3390/ijerph13111042 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Solomontos‐Kountouri, O., Gradinger, P., Yanagida, T., & Strohmeier, D. (2016). The implementation and evaluation of the ViSC program in Cyprus: Challenges of cross‐national dissemination and evaluation results . European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 13 ( 6 ), 737–755. 10.1080/17405629.2015.1136618 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spröber, N., Schlottke, P. F., & Hautzinger, M. (2006). ProACT + E: Ein Programm zur Pravention von “bullying” an Schulen und zur Forderung der positiven Entwicklung von Schulern: Evalation eines schulbasierten, universalen, primar‐praventiven Programms fur weiterfuhrende Schulen unter Einbeziehung von Lehrern, Schulern und Eltern. [German: ProACT + E: A programme to prevent bullying in schools and to increase the positive development of students. Evaluation of a school‐based, universal, primary preventive programme for secondary schools that includes teachers, students, and parents] . Zeitschrift fur Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie: Forschung und Praxis , 35 , 140–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stallard, P., Phillips, R., Montgomery, A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., Taylor, J., Araya, R., Lewis, G., Ukoumunne, O., Millings, A., Georgiou, L., Cook, E., & Sayal, K. (2013). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of classroom‐based cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high‐risk adolescents . Health Technology Assessment , 17 ( 47 ). 10.3310/hta17470 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strohmeier, D., Hoffmann, C., Schiller, E., Stefanek, E., & Spiel, C. (2012). ViSC Social Competence Program . New Directions for Youth Development , 133 , 71–84. 10.1002/yd.20008 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sutherland, A. E. (2010). The roles of school climate and peers in bullying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Queen's University, Canada.
• Toner, B. K. (2010). The implementation of the bully prevention program: Bully Proofing Your School and its effect on bullying and school climate on sixth grade suburban Students (Doctoral dissertation). Available from the ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database (UMI No. 3414552).
• Topper, L. R. (2011). Bullying victimisation and alcohol‐misuse in adolescence: Investigating the functional relationship and new prevention strategies (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). King's College London, UK.
• Trip, S., Bora, C., Sipos‐Gug, S., Tocai, I., Gradinger, P., Yanagida, T., & Strohmeier, D. (2015). Bullying prevention in schools by targeting cognitions, emotions, and behavior: Evaluating the effectiveness of the REBE‐ViSC program . Journal of Counselling Psychology , 62 ( 4 ), 732–740. 10.1037/cou0000084 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsiantis, A. C. J., Beratis, I. N., Syngelaki, E. M., Stefanakou, A., Asimopolous, C., Sideridis, G. D., & Tsiantis, J. (2013). The effects of a clinical prevention program on bullying, victimization, and attitudes toward school of elementary school students . Behavioral Disorders , 38 ( 4 ), 243–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of schoolwide positive behavioural interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection . Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine , 166 ( 2 ), 149–156. 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.755 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, C., & Goldberg, T. S. (2017). Using children's literature to decrease moral disengagement and victimization among elementary school students . Psychology in the Schools , 54 , 918–931. 10.1002/pits.22042 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitaker, D. J., Rosenbluth, B., Valle, L. A., & Sanchez, E. (2004). Expect respect: A school‐based intervention to promote awareness and effective responses to bullying and sexual harassment. In Espelage D. L. & Swearer S. M. (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social‐ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 327–350). Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitney, I., Rivers, I., Smith, P. K., & Sharp, S. (1994). The Sheffield Project: Methodology and findings. In Smith P. K. & Sharp S. (Eds.), School bullying: Insights and perspectives (pp. 20–56). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Williams, J., Miller, S., Cutbush, S., Gibbs, D., Clinton‐Sherrod, M., & Jones, S. (2015). A latent transition model of the effects of a teen dating violence prevention initiative . Journal of Adolescent Health , 56 , S27–S32. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.08.019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yaakub, N. F., Haron, F., & Leong, G. C. (2010). Examining the efficacy of the Olweus prevention programme in reducing bullying: The Malaysian experience . Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences , 5 , 595–598. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.148 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yanagida, T., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2019). Dynamic change of aggressive behavior and victimization among adolescents: Effectiveness of the ViSC program . Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology , 48 , S90–S104. 10.1080/15374416.2016.1233498 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

REFERENCES TO EXCLUDED STUDIES

• Ahtola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Implementation of anti‐bullying lessons in primary classrooms: How important is head teacher support? Educational Research , 55 ( 4 ), 376–392. 10.1080/00131881.2013.844941 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ahtola, A., Haataja, A., Kärnä, A., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). For children only? Effects of the KiVa antibullying program on teachers . Teaching and Teacher Education , 28 , 851–859. 10.1016/j.tate.2012.03.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeSmet, A., Bastiaensens, S., Van Cleemput, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., Deboutte, G., Herrewijn, L., Malliet, S., Pabian, S., Van Broeckhoven, F., De Troyer, O., Deglorie, G., Van Hoecke, S., Samyn, K., & De Bourdeaudhuij, I. (2018). The efficacy of the Friendly Attac serious digitial game to promote prosocial bystander behavior in cyberbullying among young adolescents: A cluster‐randomized controlled trial . Computers in Human Behavior , 78 , 336–347. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Del Rey, R., Casas, J. A., & Ortega, R. (2015). The impacts of the ConRed program on different cyberbullying roles . Aggressive Behavior , 42 ( 2 ), 123–135. 10.1002/ab.21608 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Earhart, J. A., Jr. (2011). Promoting positive peer relationships among youths: A study examining the effects of a class‐wide bullying prevention program (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Santa Barbara. Retrieved from: ProQuest dissertations publishing (no. 3481964).
• Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. H., & Polanin, J. R. (2015). Social‐emotional learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization among middle school students with disabilities . Remedial and Special Education , 36 , 1–13. 10.1177/0741932514564564 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fletcher, A., Fitzgerald‐Yau, N., Wiggins, M., Viner, R. M., & Bonell, C. (2015). Involving young people in changing their school environment to make it safer: Findings from a process evaluation in English secondary schools . Health Education , 115 ( 3‐4 ), 322–338. 10.1108/HE-04-2014-0063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V., & Snell, J. L. (2009). Observed reductions in school bullying, nonbullying aggression, and destructive bystander behavior: A longitudinal evaluation . Journal of Educational Psychology , 101 ( 2 ), 466–481. 10.1037/a0013839 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garandeau, C. F., Lee, I. A., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Differential effects of the KiVa anti‐bullying program on popular and unpopular bullies . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 35 ( 1 ), 44–50. 10.1016/j.appdev.2013.10.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garandeau, C. F., Poskiparta, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2014). Tackling acute cases of school bullying in the KiVa anti‐bullying program: A comparison of two approaches . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 42 , 981–991. 10.1007/s10802-014-9861-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giesbrecht, G. F., Leadbeater, B. J., & MacDonald, S. W. S. (2011). Child and context characteristics in trajectories of physical and relational victimization among early elementary school children . Development and Psychopathology , 23 , 239–252. 10.1017/S09545739410000763 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gradinger, P., Yanagida, T., Strohmeier, D., & Spiel, C. (2015). Prevention of cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Evaluation of the ViSC Social Competence program . Journal of School Violence , 14 ( 1 ), 87–110. 10.1080/15388220.2014.96323 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haataja, A., Voeten, M., Boulton, A. J., Ahtola, A., Poskiparta, E., & Samlivalli, C. (2014). The KiVa antibullying curriculum and outcome: Does fidelity matter? Journal of School Psychology , 52 , 479–493. 10.1016/j.jsp.2014.07.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harpin, S. B. (2011). Missingness in longitudinal research: Attrition analysis and imputation approaches in a school‐based study of young adolescents (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Minnesota.
• Hutchings, J., & Clarkson, S. (2015). Introducing and piloting the KiVa bullying prevention programme in the UK . Educational and Child Psychology , 32 ( 1 ), 49–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Muijs, D., Rekers‐Mombarg, L., van Petegem, P., & Pearson, D. (2014). Using the dynamic model of educational effectiveness to design strategies and actions to face bullying . School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 25 ( 1 ), 83–104. 10.1080/09243453.2013.771686 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leff, S. S., Waasdorp, T. E., Paskewich, B., Gullan, R. L., Jawad, A. F., Paquette MacEvoy, J., Feinberg, B. E., & Power, T. J. (2010). The Preventing Relational Aggression in School Everyday program: A preliminary evaluation of acceptability and impact . School Psychology Review , 39 ( 4 ), 569–587. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis, K. M., Schure, M. B., Bavarian, N., DuBois, D. L., Day, J., Ji, P., Silverthorn, N., Acock, A., Vuchinich, S., & Flay, B. R. (2013). Problem behavior and urban, low‐income youth: A randomized controlled trial of Positive Action in Chicago . American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 44 ( 6 ), 622–630. 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.01.030 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lishak, N. (2011). Examination of bullying behaviours and the implementation of a social norms project in a middle school (Doctoral Dissertation). Walden University. (UMI 3454156).
• Low, S., Van Ryzin, M. J., Brown, E. C., Smith, B. H., & Haggerty, K. P. (2014). Engagement matters: Lessons from assessing classroom implementation of Steps to Respect: A bullying prevention program over a one‐year period . Prevention Science , 15 , 165–176. 10.1007/s11121-012-0359-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Noland, B. (2011). Effects of the KiVa anti‐bullying program on adolescents' perceptions of peers, depression, and anxiety (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Kansas: University of Kansas.
• van der Ploeg, R., Steglich, C., & Veenstra, R. (2016). The support group approach in the Dutch KiVa anti‐bullying programme: Effects on victimization, defending and well‐being at school . Educational Research , 58 ( 3 ), 221–236. 10.1080/00131881.2016.1884949 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Şahin, M. (2012). An investigation into the efficiency of empathy training program on preventing bullying in primary schools . Children and Youth Services Review , 34 , 1325–1330. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.03.013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sainio, M., Veenstra, R., Huitsing, G., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Same‐ and other‐sex victimization: Are the risk factors similar? Aggressive Behavior , 38 , 422–455. 10.1002/ab.21445 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C., Kärnä, A., & Poskiparta, E. (2012). Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied . International Journal of Behavioral Development , 35 ( 5 ), 405–411. 10.1177/0165025411407457 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schroeder, B. A., Messina, A., Schroeder, D., Good, K., Barto, S., Saylor, J., & Masiello, M. (2012). The implementation of a statewide bullying prevention program: Preliminary findings from the field and the importance of coalitions . Health promotion practice , 13 ( 4 ), 49–495. 10.1177/1524839910386887 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stevens, V., de Bourdeaudhuij, I., & van Oost, P. (2000). Bullying in Flemish schools: An evaluation of anti‐bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools . British Journal of Educational Psychology , 70 , 195–210. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Watson, S. E. J., Vannini, N., Woods, S., Dautenhahn, K., Sapouna, M., Enz, S., Schneider, W., Wolke, D., Hall, L., Paiva, A., André, E., & Aylett, R. (2010). Inter‐cultural differences in response to a computer‐based anti‐bullying intervention . Educational Research , 52 ( 1 ), 61–80. 10.1080/001318811003588261 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williford, A., Boulton, A., Noland, B., Little, T. D., Kärnä, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2012). Effects of the KiVa anti‐bullying program on adolescents' depression, anxiety, and perception of peers . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 40 , 289–300. 10.1007/s10802-011-9551-1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Williford, A., Elledge, L. C., Boulton, A. J., DePaolis, K. J., Little, T. D., & Salmivalli, C. (2013). Effects of the KiVa anti‐bullying program on cyberbullying and cybervictimization frequency among Finnish youth . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 42 ( 6 ), 820–833. 10.1080/15374416.2013.787623 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wölfer, R., & Scheithauer, H. (2014). Social influence and bullying behavior: Intervention‐based network dynamics of the fairplayer.manual bullying prevention program . Aggressive Behavior , 40 , 309–319. 10.1002/ab.21524 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong, D. S. W., Cheng, C. H. K., Ngan, R. M. H., & Ma, S. K. (2011). Program effectiveness of a restorative whole‐school approach for tackling school bullying in Hong Kong . International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 55 ( 6 ), 846–862. 10.1177/0306624X10374638 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wurf, G. (2012). High school anti‐bullying interventions: An evaluation of curriculum approaches and the method of Shared Concern in four Hong Kong international schools . Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling , 22 ( 1 ), 139–149. 10.1017/jgc.2012.2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, A., & Salmivalli, C. (2015). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying programme on bully‐victims, bullies and victims . Educational Research , 57 ( 1 ), 80–90. 10.1080/00131881.2014.983724 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour . Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes , 50 , 179–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Altinay, D. (2003). Psycho‐dramatic group therapy . Istanbul: System Publishing. [ 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. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atria, M., & Spiel, C. (2007). Viennese Social Competence (ViSC) training for students: Program and Evaluation. In Maher C. A., Zins J. & Elias M. (Eds.), Bullying, Victimization, and Peer Harassment: A Handbook of Prevention and Intervention (pp. 179–197). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayieko, J., Abuogi, L., Simchowitz, B., Bukusi, E. A., Smith, A. H., & Reingold, A. (2014). Efficacy of isoniazid prophylactic therapy in prevention of tuberculosis in children: A meta‐analysis . BMC Infectious Diseases , 14 ( 1 ), 91. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Sorrentino, A. (2017). School bullying and cyberbullying among boys and girls: Roles and overlap . Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma , 26 ( 9 ), 937–951. 10.1080/10926771.2017.1330793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldry, A. C., Sorrentino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities . Children and Youth Services Review , 96 , 302–307. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. (1978). Social learning theory of aggression . Journal of Communication , 28 ( 3 ), 12–29. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01621.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom, H. S., Hill, C. J., & Riccio, J. A. (2003). Linking program implementation and effectiveness: Lessons from a pooled sample of welfare‐to‐work experiments . Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 22 ( 4 ), 551–575. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brighi, A., Ortega, R., Pyzalski, J., Scheithauer, H., Smith, P.K., Tsormpatzoudis, C., Barkoukis, V., Del Rey, R., & Thompson, J. (2012). European Cyberbullying Intervention Project Questionnaire (ECIPQ) . Unpublished manuscript. Bologna, Italy: University of Bologna.
• Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta‐analysis . Wiley Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cantone, E., Piras, A. P., Vellante, M., Preti, A., Daníelsdóttir, S., D'Aloja, E., Lesinskiene, S., Angermeyer, M. C., Carta, M. G., & Bhugra, D. (2015). Interventions on bullying and cyberbullying in schools: A systematic review . Clinical Practice & Epidiology in Mental Health , 11 ( Suppl 1 M4 ), 58–76. 10.2174/174501791511010058 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carlos‐Wallace, F. M., Zhang, L., Smith, M. T., Rader, G., & Steinmaus, C. (2016). Parental, in utero, and early‐life exposure to benzene and the risk of childhood leukaemia: A meta‐analysis . American Journal of Epidemiology , 183 ( 1 ), 1–14. 10.1093/aje/kwv120 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cavell, T. A., & Hughes, J. N. (2000). Secondary prevention as context for assessing change processes in aggressive children . Journal of School Psychology , 38 , 199–236. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chalamandaris, A., & Piette, D. (2015). School‐based anti‐bullying interventions: Systematic review of the methodology to assess their effectiveness . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 24 , 131–174. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . (2014). Bullying surveillance among school‐ aged children: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements . Washington, DC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [ Google Scholar ]
• Combs, A. (1962). The self in chaos . PsycCRITIQUES , 7 ( 2 ), 53–54. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools . Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2012). Improving quality in education: Dynamic approaches to school improvement . Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• van Dam, D. S., van der Ven, E., Velthorst, E., Selten, J. P., Morgan, C., & de Haan, L. (2012). Childhood bullying and the association with psychosis in non‐clinical and clinical samples: A review and meta‐analysis . Psychological Medicine , 42 , 2463–2474. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Department for Education and Skills . (2005). Excellence and enjoyment: Social and emotional aspects of learning . London: Author. [ Google Scholar ]
• Diekstra, R. F. W. (1996). Keerpunten: Naar een preventief jeugbeleid (Turning Points: Towards preventive youth policy) . Municipal Authority Greater City of Rotterdam (GCD) .
• Donner, A., & Klar, N. (2002). Issues in meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials . Statistics in Medicine , 21 , 2971–2980. 10.1002/sim.1301 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Donner, A., Piaggio, G., & Villar, J. (2001). Statistical methods for the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials . Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 10 , 325–338. 10.1191/096228001680678322 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorjee, K., Choden, T., Baxi, S. M., Steinmaus, C., & Reingold, A. L. (2018). Risk of cardiovasculat disease associated with exposure to abacavir among individuals with HIV: A systematic review and meta‐analyses of results from 17 epidemiological studies . International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents , 52 , 541–553. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duckworth, A. L., Steen, T. A., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2005). Positive psychology in clinical practice . Annual Review of Clinical Psychology , 1 , 629–651. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991). Publication bias in clinical research . The Lancet , 337 ( 8746 ), 867–872. 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-Y [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisner, M., & Humphreys, D. (2012). Measuring conflict of interest in prevention and intervention research: A feasibility study. In T. Bliesener, A. Beelmann, & M. Stemmler (Eds.), Antisocial Behavior and Crime , (pp. 165 – 180). Hogrefe.
• Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy . Stuart. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis, P. D. (2010). The Essential Guide to Effect sizes: Statistical power, Meta‐analysis, and the interpretation of research results . Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erren, T. C., Glende, C. B., Morfeld, P., & Piekarski, C. (2009). Is exposure to silica associated with lung cancer in the absence of silicosis? A meta‐analytical approach to an important public health question . International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health , 82 ( 8 ), 997–1004. 10.1007/s00420-008-0381-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Espelage, D., & Horne, A. (2008). School violence and bullying prevention: From research based explanations to empirically based solutions. In Brown S. & Lent R. (Eds.), Handbook of Counselling psychology (4 th edition, pp. 588–606). Wiley and Sons. [ Google Scholar ]
• Evans, C. B. R., Fraser, M. W., & Cotter, K. L. (2014). The effectiveness of school‐based bullying prevention programs: A systematic review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 19 ( 5 ), 532–544. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.07.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P. (1983). Randomized experiments on crime and justice . Crime and Justice , 4 , 257–308. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P. (1993). Understanding and preventing bullying . Crime and Justice: A Review of Research , 17 , 381–458. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P. (2003). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research . The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 587 ( 1 ), 49–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Ttofi, M. M., & Theodorakis, N. (2012). School bullying, depression and offending behavior later in life: An updated systematic review of longitudinal studies . Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The Campbell Collaboration crime and justice group . ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 ( 1 ), 35–49. 10.1177/000271620157800103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). School‐based programs to reduce bullying and victimization . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 6 , 1–148. 10.4073/csr.2009.6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2008). Saving children from a life of crime: Early risk factors and effective interventions . Oxford University press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). Measuring effect size in meta‐analysis, with special reference to area‐based crime prevention programs and the effects of closed‐circuit television on crime. In Kuhn A., Schwarzenegger C., Margot P., Donatsch A., Aebi M. & Jositsch D. (Eds.), Criminology, criminal policy and criminal law from an international perspective (pp. 75–89). Stampfli. [ Google Scholar ]
• Faupel, A. (2003). Emotional literacy assessment and intervention ages 7‐11 . NFER Nelson.
• Ferguson, C. J., Miguel, C. S., Kilburn, J. C., & Sanchez, P. (2007). The effectiveness of school‐based anti‐bullying programmes: A meta‐analytic review . Criminal Justice Review , 32 , 401–414. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flay, B. R., & Allred, C. G. (2010). The Positive Action program: Improving academics, behavior, and character by teaching comprehensive skills for successful learning and living. In Lovat T., Toomey R. & Clement N. (Eds.), International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing (pp. 471–501). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., Espelage, D. L., & Ttofi, M. M. (2018). Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta‐analytical review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 45 , 134–153. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of school‐bullying prevention programs: An updated meta‐analytical review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 45 , 111–133. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gastic, B. (2008). School truancy and the disciplinary problems of bullying victims . Educational Review , 60 ( 4 ), 391–404. 10.1080/00131910802393423 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geel, M., , van Goemans, A. , & Vedder, P. H. (2016). The relation between peer victimization and sleeping problems: A meta‐analysis . Sleep medicine reviews , 27 , 89–95. 10.1016/j.smrv.2015.05.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geel, M., , van Vedder, P. , & Tanilon, J. (2014). Bullying and weapon carrying: A meta‐analysis . JAMA Pediatrics , 168 , 714–720. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gini, G., & Pozzoli, T. (2013). Bullied children and psychosomatic problems: A meta‐analysis . Pediatrics , 132 , 720–729. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gini, G., Pozzoli, T., Lenzi, M., & Vieno, A. (2014). Bullying victimization at school and headache: A meta‐analysis of observational studies . Headache , 54 , 976–986. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gravesteijn, J. C., & Diekstra, R. F. W. (2013). Skills for Life, docentenhandleiding, teachers manual . EduActief. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haggas, L. S. (2006). A bully prevention challenge course curriculum (Unpublished master's professional project). Western Oregon University.
• Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years' research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta‐analytic review of cross‐sectional studies . Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 41 , 441–455. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• He, J., Van de Vijver, F. J., Dominguez Espinosa, A., Abubakar, A., Dimitrova, R., Adams, B. G., & Fischer, R. (2015). Socially desirable responding: Enhancement and denial in 20 countries, Cross‐Cultural Research ( 49 , pp. 227–249. 3 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Hedges, L. V. (1982). Estimation and testing for differences in effect size: Comment on Hsu . Psychological Bulletin , 91 , 391–393. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higgins, J. P. T., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2011). Special topics in statistics. In Higgins J. P. T. & Green S. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 481–530). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschstein, M. K., & Frey, K. S. (2007). Promoting behaviors and beliefs that reduce bullying. The Steps to Respect program. In Jimerson S. R. & Furlong M. J. (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice . Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• 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. 10.1542/peds.2014-1864 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hopkins, B. (2004). Just Schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice . Jessica Kingsley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez‐Barbero, J. A., Ruiz Hernández, J. A., Llor‐Esteban, B., & Pérez‐García, M. (2012). Effectiveness of antibullying school programmes: A systematic review by evidence levels . Children and Youth Services Review , 34 ( 9 ), 1646–1658. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.04.025 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jiménez‐Barbero, J. A., Ruiz‐Hernández, J. A., Llor‐Zaragoza, L., Pérez‐García, M., & Llor‐Esteban, B. (2016). Effectiveness of anti‐bullying school programs: A meta‐analsysis . Children and Youth Services Review , 61 , 165–175. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.12.015 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., Filene, J. H., & Boyle, C. L. (2008). A meta‐analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 36 , 567–589. 10.1007/s10802-007-9201-9 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kochenderfer, B. J., & Ladd, G. W. (2000). Victimized children's responses to peers’ aggression: Behaviors associated with reduced versus continued victimization . Development and Psychopathology , 9 , 59–73. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyriakides, L. (2008). Testing the validity of the comprehensive model of educational effectiveness: A step towards the development of a dynamic model of effectiveness . School Effectiveness and School Improvement , 19 ( 4 ), 429–446. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Papastylianou, D., & Papadatou‐Pastou, M. (2014). Improving the school learning environment to reduce bullying: An experimental study . Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research , 58 ( 4 ), 453–478. 10.1080/00313831.2013.773556 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta‐analysis . Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta‐analysis . Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Masiello, M. G., & Schroeder, D. (2014). A public health approach to bullying prevention . APHA Press. 10.2105/9780875530413 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McAuley, L., Tugwell, P., & Moher, D. (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta‐analysis? The Lancet , 356 ( 9237 ), 1228–1231. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mishara, B. L., & Ystgaard, M. (2006). Effectiveness of a mental health promotion program to improve coping skills in young children: “Zippy's Friends” . Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 21 ( 1 ), 110–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Modecki, K. L., Minchin, J., Harbaugh, A. G., Guerra, N. G., & Runions, K. C. (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta‐analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying . Journal of Adolescent Health , 55 , 602–611. 10.1016/j.adohealth.2014.06.007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morrison, B. (2002). Bullying and victimization in schools: A restorative justice approach . Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends and Issues , 219 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Murray, D. M., & Blitstein, J. L. (2003). Methods to reduce the impact of intraclass correlation in group‐randomized trials . Evaluation Review , 27 , 79–103. 10.1177/0193841x02239019 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murphy, E., & Lewers, R. (2000). The hidden hurt . Wizard Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1986). The Olweus bully/victim questionnaire . University of Bergen. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among school children: Basic facts and effects of a school‐based intervention program . In Pepler D. J. & Rubin K. H. (Eds.), The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, (pp. 411–448) . Erlbaum. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire . Mimeo. Bergen, Norway: Research Center for Health Promotion (HEMIL Center), University of Bergen. [ Google Scholar ]
• Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2017). Some problems with cyberbullying research . Current Opinion in Psychology , 19 , 139–143. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostrov, J. M., & Kamper, K. E. (2015). Future directions for research on the development of relational and physical peer victimization . Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology , 44 , 509–519. 10.1080/15374416.2015.1012733 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens, A., & Barber, K. (1998). Draama toimii , [Dramaworks]. Helsinki, Finland: JB‐kustannus. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perkins, W. H. (2003). The social norms approach to preventing school and college age substance abuse . Jossey‐Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pikas, A. (2002). New developments of the Shared Concern method . School Psychology International , 23 ( 3 ), 307–326. [ Google Scholar ]
• Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D. P., Tremblay, R. E., Welsh, B. C., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2016). A meta‐analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behaviour and delinquency . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 12 , 229–248. 10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Portnoy, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2015). Resting heart rate and antisocial behavior: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 22 , 33–45. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purkey, W. W. (1970). Self concept and school achievement . Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Purkey, W. W., & Novak, J. M. (1996). Inviting school success: A self‐concept approach to teaching, learning, and democratic practice . Wadsworth. [ Google Scholar ]
• Resnik, M. D. (2000). Protective factors, resiliency, and healthy youth development . Adolescent medicine: State of the art reviews , 11 ( 1 ), 157–164. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rigby, K., & Johnson, B. (2006). Expressed readiness of Australian schoolchildren to act as bystanders in support of children who are being bullied . Educational psychology , 26 ( 3 ), 425–440. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roland, E., & Galloway, D. (2004). Professional cultures in schools with high and low rates of bullying . School effectiveness and school improvement , 15 ( 3‐4 ), 241–260. 10.1080/09243450512331383202 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C. (2010). Bullying and the peer group: A review . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 15 ( 2 ), 112–120. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salmivalli, C., Lagerspertz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group . Aggressive Behavior , 22 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schultze‐Krumbholz, A., Wölfer, R., Jäkel, A., Zagorscak, P., & Scheithauer, H. (2012). Effective prevention of cyberbullying in Germany: The Medienhelden program. Paper presented at the 10 th ISRA World Meeting, Luxembourg.
• Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology . American Psychologist , 55 ( 1 ), 5–14. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sercombe, H., & Donnelly, B. (2013). Bullying and agency: Definition, intervention and ethics . Journal of Youth Studies , 16 ( 4 ), 491–502. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sieving, R. E., & Widome, R. (2008). Toward preventing youth violence: Engaging urban middle‐school students in community service learning . CURA Reporter , 38 ( 1 ), 12–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sismani, E., Paradeisioti, A., & Lazarou, C. (2014). Bullying phenomenon and preventive programs in Cyprus's school system . International Journal of Mental Health Promotion , 16 ( 1 ), 67–80. 10.1080/14623730.2014.888894 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, P. K., Ananiadou, K., & Cowie, H. (2003). Interventions to reduce school bullying . The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry , 48 ( 9 ), 591–599. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a Fourteen–Country international comparison . Child Development , 73 ( 4 ), 1119–1133. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, J. D., Schneider, B. H., Smith, P. K., & Ananiadou, K. (2004). The effectiveness of whole‐school antibullying programs: A synthesis of evaluation research . School psychology review , 33 , 547–560. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith, P. K., Kwak, K., & Toda, Y. (2016). School bullying in different cultures: Eastern and Western perspectives . Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Solberg, M. E., & Olweus, D. (2003). Prevalence estimation of school bullying with the Olweus Bully/Victim Questionnaire . Aggressive Behavior , 29 ( 3 ), 239–268. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinmaus, C., Smith, A. H., Jones, R. M., & Smith, M. T. (2008). Meta‐analysis of benzene exposure and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma: Biases could mask an important association . Occupational & Environmental Medicine , 65 ( 6 ), 371–378. 10.1136/oem.2007.036913 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Strøm, I. F., Thoresen, S., Wentzel‐Larsen, T., & Dyb, G. (2013). Violence, bullying and academic achievement: A study of 15‐year‐old adolescents and their school environment . Child Abuse & Neglect , 37 ( 4 ), 243–251. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.10.010 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). A social‐ecological framework of bullying among youth. Bullying in North American schools . Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swearer, S., Siebecker, A. B., Johnsen‐Frerichs, L. A., & Wang, C. (2010). Assessment of bullying/victimization: The problem of comparability across studies and methodologies. In Jimerson S. R., Swearer S. M. & Espelage D. L. (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 305–327). Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin W. G. & Worschel S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations . Brooks/Cole Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Trip, S., & Bora, C. (2010). Educatie rational‐emotiva si comportamentala. Program de preventive primara si secundara pentru clasele V‐VIII [Rational‐emotive and behavioral education. Primary and secondary prevention program for V‐VIII grades]/Oradea, Romania: Editura Universitati din Oradea.
• Tsiantis, J. (Ed.). (2011). Bullying prevention and coping workshops: Class activities with students . A.P.H.C.A. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M. (2015). Adolescent bullying linked to depression in early adulthood: Evidence supports early intervention . British Medical Journal , 350 , h2694. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2011). Effectiveness of school‐based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta‐analytic review . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 7 , 27–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011a). Do victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later in life? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies . Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research , 3 ( 2 ), 63–73. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011b). The predictive efficiency of school bullying versus later offending: A systematic/meta‐analytic review of longitudinal studies . Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health , 21 , 80–89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Lösel, F. (2012). School bullying as a predictor of violence later in life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective longitudinal studies . Aggression and Violent Behaviour , 17 , 405–418. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., Eisner, M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2014). Bullying prevention: Assessing existing meta‐evaluations. In Bruinsma G. & Weisburd D. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 231–242). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., Lösel, F., Crago, R. V., & Theodorakis, N. (2016). School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta‐analytic investigation . School Pscyhology Quarterly , 31 ( 1 ), 8–27. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdebenito, S., Eisner, M., Farrington, D. P., Ttofi, M. M., & Sutherland, A. (2018). School‐based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: A systematic review . Campbell Systematic Reviews , 2018 , 1. 10.4073/csr.2018.1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M., & Eisner, M. (2015). Prevalence rates of drug use among school bullies and victims: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cross‐sectional studies . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 23 , 137–146. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valdebenito, S., Ttofi, M. M., Eisner, M., & Gaffney, H. (2018). Weapon carrying in and out of school among pure bullies, pure victims and bully‐victims: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of cross‐sectional and longitudinal studies . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 33 , 62–77. [ Google Scholar ]
• Volk, A. A., Veenstra, R., & Espelage, D. L. (2017). So you want to study bullying? Recommendations to enhance the validity, transparency, and comparability of bullying research . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 36 , 34–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school‐based interventions to prevent bullying . Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 161 , 78–88. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisburd, D. (2003). Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: The moral imperative for randomized trials . Evaluation Review , 27 ( 3 ), 336–354. 10.1177/0193841X03027003007 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weisburd, D., Lum, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 ( 1 ), 50–70. 10.1177/000271620157800104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, D. B. (2010). Meta‐analysis. In Piquero A. R. & Weisburd D. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 181–208). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Woolf‐King, S. E., Steinmaus, C. M., Reingold, A. L., & Hahn, J. A. (2013). An update on alcohol use and risk of HIV infection in sub‐Saharan Africa: Meta‐analysis and future research directions . International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research , 2 ( 1 ), 99–110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zych, I., Baldry, A. C., Farrington, D. P., & Llorent, V. J. (2019). Are children involved in cyberbullying low on empathy? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of research on empathy versus different cyberbullying roles . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 45 , 83–97. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.03.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zych, I., Farrington, D. P., Llorent, V. J., & Ttofi, M. M. (2017). Protecting children against bullying and its consequences: SpringerBriefs in behavioral criminology . Springer International Publishing. 10.1007/978-3-319-53028-4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zych, I., Ortega‐Ruiz, R., & del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 23 , 1–21. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zych, I., Viejo, C., Vila, E., & Farrington, D. P. (2019). School bullying and dating violence in adolescents: A systematic review and meta‐analysis . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 152483801985446. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

from a small NHS Foundation Trust

Bullying and harassment

“I spoke to my line manager first, when I saw that no change was made, I escalated this to my line manager’s manager. No changes were made and I then reached out to the Freedom to Speak Up Guardian through email as I was struggling to cope.

I spoke to the Guardian about the bullying and harassment I experienced from a colleague who targeted ethnic minorities. They would say things like  “How come your English is good?” and make racist, sexist and religious jokes.

I spoke to my line manager. “This is just what they’re like, but I will speak to them”, they said. But nothing changed, in fact they received a promotion, despite their behaviour which had been raised by others who had since left the organisation.

I then spoke up to my line manager’s superior. They said, “Stop being an angry black woman”. They said that a training exercise with the team would be arranged. But this was not pursued any further.

I felt repeatedly dismissed, alienated and insulted and it affected my confidence because I was afraid to speak up.

I then reached out to the organisation’s Freedom to Speak Up Guardian. At first I was afraid because I did not want to be alienated even further. It was as if I met a doctor; she was able to assess the situation and diagnose the problem. I felt empowered because the Guardian was extremely approachable and understanding, and she gave me encouragement which has allowed me to speak up now.

She spoke to my manager and my manager immediately spoke to the colleague on the telephone at home after work. When I came in to work the next morning, my manager told me that the colleague had cried and felt really bad as she was unaware of how her behaviour had affected me. But except for the initial apology, no other action has been taken.

The Guardian, in a bid to escalate this further, invited me to share my experience to a wider audience. I spoke with a group of line managers to highlight the impact of my experience and educate them on raising and handling concerns in the workplace.

The Guardian has shared my story at a board meeting, and there was a lot of discussion around race and managers’ behaviours. They agreed that all managers, including mine, will receive training in the handling of concerns which is being developed. The training will also cover sensitivity and inappropriate banter.

On reflection, I should have spoken up sooner rather than allow the issues to fester. I have learnt that speaking up about issues that I have experienced, seen or heard is worthwhile.  I am now no longer afraid to speak up.

This case study was part of our  100 Voices publication  which accompanied the 2019 Annual Report.

Case studies are vital to illustrate the good work of Freedom to Speak Up Guardians. We encourage all organisations to share the learning from their speaking up stories.

If you have a Freedom to Speak Up story to share, please send an email to  [email protected]

Advertisement

Indian government initiatives on cyberbullying: A case study on cyberbullying in Indian higher education institutions

• Published: 04 July 2022
• Volume 28 , pages 581–615, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Manpreet Kaur   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7680-3075 1 &
• Munish Saini   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4129-2591 1  

20k Accesses

16 Citations

Explore all metrics

In the digitally empowered society, increased internet utilization leads to potential harm to the youth through cyberbullying on various social networking platforms. The cyberbullying stats keep on rising each year, leading to detrimental consequences. In response to this online threat, the Indian Government launched different helplines, especially for the children and women who need assistance, various complaint boxes, cyber cells, and made strict legal provisions to curb online offenses. This research evaluates the relevant initiatives. Additionally, a survey is conducted to get insights into cyberbullying in higher education institutions, discussing multiple factors responsible for youth and adolescents being cyberbullied and a few measures to combat it in universities/colleges.

Similar content being viewed by others

Cyberbullying in the University Setting

Exploratory Research to Identify the Characteristics of Cyber Victims on Social Media in New Zealand

Destructive Digital Ecosystem of Cyber Bullying Perfective Within the Information Technology Age

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Cyberbullying is harassment done to the victim to cause harm via any electronic method, including social media resulting in defamation, public disclosure of private facts, and intentional emotional distress (Watts et al., 2017 ). It can be related to sending and posting cruel texts or images with the help of social media and other digital communication devices to harm a victim (Washington, 2015 ). It is a repeated behavior done by the individual with the help of social media, over the gaming, and messaging platforms that target mainly to lower the victims' self-esteem.

In the past decade, Cyberbullying has been an emerging phenomenon that has a socio-psychological impact on adolescents. With the advancement of digital technology, youth is more attached to social media, resulting in cyberbullying. With the increasing usage of techno-savvy gadgets, social media applications are highly prevalent among the youth, which can be advantageous and disadvantageous. It allows sharing posts, photos, and messages personally and privately among friends, while on the other hand, it involves an increase in cyberbullying by creating fake accounts on the apps (Ansary, 2020 ).

In July 2021, 4,80 billion people worldwide were on social media, that's almost 61% of the world's total population depicting an annual growth of 5.7% as 7 lac new users join per day (Digital Around the World, 2021 ). As the number of users increases, there is a surge in cyberbullying; according to a UNICEF poll, more than 33% of youngsters are reported as victims of online bullying in 30 countries worldwide (UNICEF, 2020 ). Moreover, it is seen that one in five has skipped school due to fear of cyberbullying and violence. According to NCRB, 50,035 cases of cybercrime were reported in India in the year 2020, among which 1614 cases of cyberstalking, 762 cases of cyber blackmailing, 84 cases of defamation, 247 cases of fake profiles, and 838 cases of fake news were investigated. NCRB data Footnote 1 reported that cybercrimes in India increased by 63.48% (27248 cases to 44548 cases) from 2018 to 2019, which upsurged by 12.32% in 2020 (44548 cases to 50035cases).

Multiple cases of cyberbullying were reported across the country. As per news reports, in November 2016, a 23-year-old Ooshmal Ullas, MBBS student of KMCT Medical College in Mukkam, Kerala, committed suicide by jumping due to being cyberbullied over a Facebook post and injured her spine, legs, and head. Footnote 2 One more incident was reported on 9 January 2018 where a 20 years old Hindu woman killed herself after facing harassment on WhatsApp over her friendship with a Muslim man in Karnataka. Footnote 3 Another case was witnessed, a 15-year-old boy connected with the 'Bois locker room', an Instagram group where they share photos of minor girls and exchange lewd comments, was arrested by Delhi police on 4 May 2020. Footnote 4 An incident occurred on 26 June 2014 a 17 years old girl committed suicide after Satish and Deepak, her friends, morphed her photos and posted them on Facebook along with her cell phone number. Footnote 5 Many such cases are reported every year, and this rising number of suicides due to cyberbullying is alarming and worrisome.

The primary cause of cyberbullying is anonymity, in which a bully can easily target anyone over the internet by hiding their original identity. The psychological features play an eminent role in determining whether a person is a victim or a bully. A pure bully has a high level of aggression and needs succorance, whereas the pure victim has high levels of interception, empathy, and nurturance (Watts et al., 2017 ). It has been found that various factors are responsible for becoming a cyberbully. According to Tanrikulu (Tanrikulu & Erdur-Baker, 2021 ), Personality traits are responsible for cyberbullying behavior. The primary cause is online inhibition, in which a person bullies others with the motives of harm, domination, revenge, or entertainment. Other causes are moral disengagement as the findings imply that, regardless of the contemporaneous victimization status, moral disengagement has an equal impact on bullying perpetration for those who are most engaged. Pure bullies have more moral disengagement than those bullies/victims who aren't as active in bullying (Runions et al., 2019 ). The next one is Narcissism , which means individuals consider social status and authority dominant over their human relations. The last is aggression, which refers to overcoming negativities and failures by force, triggering them to do cyberbullying for satisfaction. Similarly, there are some personality traits associated with cyberbullying participants as a study (Ngo et al., 2021 ) examined three groups of online users where the first one is the "Intervene" group which believes in uplifting the morale of victims by responding to cyberbullying acts while others are the "Ignore" group that doesn't involve in reacting to the cyberbullying acts and just ignores the victims or leave the cyberspace and the third one is "Join in" that either promote the bullying or just enjoy watching cyberbullying act without any participation. The adolescents belonging to intervene group may play a critical role in reducing cyberbullying behavior and its consequences.

Social acceptance also plays a vital role in reducing bullying. It has been observed that among students who lack socialization activity, an individual contributes a high incidence rate of bullying that leads to victimization. Yubero carried out a study that depicts individuals feeling more comfortable in online environments that are not accepted by their peers and hence are more exposed to cyberbullying victimization. Apart from this, the relationship between loneliness and cyberbullying is more prevalent because lonely youth devote quality of time to the internet hence facing cyberbullying (Yubero et al., 2017 ). In this situation, students could either defend themselves or rely on cyber bystander intervention. A cyber bystander is one offering assistance to the victim, either individually or socially, and they are more inclined to act if they feel more empathy (Wang, 2021 ). Since interfering publicly may have detrimental consequences, cyber bystanders are more worried about being retaliated against or being the next victim.

Parental support and monitoring also help to escape cyberbullying victimization. It has been observed that parents who employed autonomy-supportive measures, such as understanding the adolescent's viewpoint, providing alternatives, and giving justifications for prohibitions, had youngsters who reported lower cyberbullying than parents who used dominating measures (especially using guilt, shame, and conditional regard) (Legate et al., 2019 ).

Cyberbullying is one of the significant problems that need to be eradicated. Due to cyberbullying, youngsters face many issues related to their health like depression, low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, and even it leads to low academic performance, etc. Several aspects are considered responsible for cyber victimization like social media, online hours, parental monitoring, awareness, social engagement, etc. The incidences of cyberbullying are elevating day by day even after the strict crime-fighting measures by state and central authorities. But the implementation of specific rules and regulations against cyberbullying crime may alter the future scenario. The Indian Government is quite aware of the issue of cyberbullying faced on social media, and the Government carries out many remedial interventions like women and child helpline numbers. Moreover, the Government provides legal implementations and acts that are trying to curb the issues of cyberbullying.

2 Aim and objective

This study aims to evaluate the initiatives taken by the Indian Government at the forefront of this noble battle to stop cyberbullying incidences and to find out various factors that make youth more vulnerable to cyberbullying. The following objectives were expected to be accomplished:

Enunciating the problem of Cyberbullying in higher education institutions.

Assessing the initiatives of the Indian Government, legal provisions for cyberbullying, and their amendments.

Evaluate the responses of higher education students to cyberbullying questionnaire.

To examine the factors responsible for cyber victimization and a few measures to combat cyberbullying.

This study is divided into two modules, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 , to achieve the aforementioned objectives. The first module focuses on explaining and exploring cyberbullying on various online platforms via digital devices, as well as preventative actions done by our Government and different cyberbullying legislation in India. In the second module, we conducted an online survey to access and examine the responses of University/College students.

Module 1- Outline of Research

Module 2-Case Study

3 Organization of paper

This paper is organized as follows, the Section  4 covers the review of research work on Cyberbullying in higher education institutions. The Section  5 highlights various merits and demerits associated with the internet, social media, and cyberbullying faced. Initiatives taken by the Indian Government in response to cyberbullying are elaborated in Section  6 . The Section  7 provides insight into the survey conducted on students of higher educational institutions. It comprises data collection, data pre-processing, methods, and algorithms employed in conducting and evaluating the responses of the participants. A detailed analysis of the results is mentioned in the "Discussion" section. In the later part of the study, measures to combat cyberbullying, major conclusions, and future recommendations are specified.

4 Related work

In the context of cyberbullying, several studies have been conducted in various countries at college and school levels, examining the different parameters responsible for cyberbullying victimization and the laws against cyberbullying. Different countries have their legal provisions to tackle the situation. A study by (Çevik et al., 2021 ) has discussed factors contributing to cyberbullying and victimization, which are problematic internet usage, school burnout, and parental monitoring. As the long hours of internet usage have resulted in the establishment of fake friendships, low academic profile, aggression, low self-esteem, and loneliness. School burnout includes students lacking interest in studies, exhaustion over studies has resulted in high usage of internet sources, increasing the risk of peer bullying. Parental monitoring plays a crucial role in the lives of adolescents, but a lack of coordination is witnessed between the adolescent and parents, leading to cyberbullying and victimization.

Yubero (Yubero et al., 2017 ) surveyed a sample of 243 Spanish university students in the social science stream, and the results confirmed Only 9.8% of higher education students experienced cyberbullying on the campus, which is much lower than reported by other studies, it may be due to the time frame selection of case study or its definition. Various parameters that may be considered a prime cause of being a victim have been examined. As a result, not much correlation was found between the loneliness of a student and cyberbullying victimization; self-esteem and cyberbullying victimization. But a negative correlation was seen between perceived acceptance by peers and cyberbullying victimization. So, it concludes that emphasis must not only be laid upon preventive measures but also on educating or training peers to help each other and building good relationships with people from whom they can seek advice. Whereas, in Ghana, 878 students took part in this study, where 83% of students have experienced cyberbullying at least once, which is much higher than the previous study result. It seems that cyberbullying is acceptable everyday behavior among Ghanaian youth, even don't feel about reporting it, and not much difference between the personality traits of victims and non-victim seen (Sam et al., 2019 ).

Students can also use a few precautionary measures to reduce cyberbullying by changing their profile settings, as blocking and deleting are considered highly used protective decisions to prevent inappropriate actions over a social networking site like Facebook. Chapin (Chapin, 2016 ), has used the precaution adoption process model to promote precautionary behavior to lower the risk associated with the health due to cyberbullying. According to Chapin, it is seen that many students are aware of the act of bullying but don't take any action.

Cyberbullying has long-term effects, and bullying behavior may continue much longer than expected. In a study, 638 Israeli undergraduate students participated, and various cyberbullying problems were evaluated. The study demonstrated that students experiencing cyberbullying face academic problems, anxiety, career problems, depression, family problems, interpersonal problems, self-esteem, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation. 57.4% of participants reported that cyberbullying among the youth will enter the workplace, which will continue throughout their lifetime (Peled, 2019 ).

In educational institutions, social networking platforms are beneficial, as Alamri et al. (Alamri et al., 2020 ) surveyed 192 students of King Faisal, a Saudi Arabian University. This survey was based on the use of SMA's (Social Media Applications) for education sustainability in the higher education system. In their research, they proposed a Theory acceptance Model used in conjunction with constructivism theory. In this model, they developed 14 hypotheses for the adoption of SMA's in students' learning systems and analyzed positive assessment of students for the adoption of SMA's in their higher education. Al-Rahmi et al. also discussed the use of Social media for Collaborative learning and information sharing among the students of the higher education system, in which a survey was conducted among the 538 university students. Students gave positive outcomes towards using SM (social media) for collaboration and student learning, highlighting the perceived enjoyment and ease. But at the same time, it has been observed that it may be affected due to cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and social media addiction (Al-Rahmi et al., 2020 ).

Ho et al. depicted the relationships between social support, cyberbullying victimization, and depressive symptoms and specialized their results, particularly studying the behavior of Vietnamese students (Ho et al., 2020 ). This research revealed that those students who are cyberbullied develop a higher risk of depressive symptoms. Still, social support, for instance, parental, peer, and special person support, can be considered a significant factor that can protect learners from developing such symptoms of depression. Also, while analyzing the survey results on 606 Vietnamese University students, it was found that social support is negatively correlated with cyberbullying, and social support is the only factor that helped those students come out from depression caused by cyberbullying.

Based on a cohort study performed in Hue city, 648 students were called from different schools. Only 9% of students were reported to be cyberbullied, while 17.6% suffered school bullying (Nguyen et al., 2020 ). Parental support has shown a protective relationship promoting the well-being among youth, more understanding and accepting attitude of parents is associated with reducing the consequences of cyberbullying that are mental issues, self-harm, and suicidal behaviors, including suicidal ideation, suicidal planning, and suicidal attempts in adolescents.

To assess risk factors and their impact in Myanmar, Khine et al. (Khine et al., 2020 ) conducted a cross-sectional study at a Medical university in Myanmar. The survey included 412 students in it, and the survey was based on factors leading to cyberbullying victimization during the last 12 months. The results were analyzed based on multiple logistic regression analyses. During the research, it was found that non-resident students or students studying at university for less than three years had a greater risk of being cyberbullying victims. The work also discussed the antagonistic relation between cyberbullying and academic performance and the positive relationship between cyberbullying and substance abuse, such as smoking and drinking alcohol. The research aimed that counseling services, cyber safety educational programs, and awareness of cyberbullying are urgently needed for university students of Myanmar.

Discussing another social networking platform, Aizenkot and Kashy-Rosenbaum have done a crossectional study to detect cyberbullying victimization in WhatsApp classmate groups in which 4477 students participated to complete the questionnaire. Here they (Aizenkot & Kashy-Rosenbaum, 2020 ) concluded that 56.5% of the students reported being victimized at least once, and 30% experienced it more than twice, while 18% (approx.) were victimized due to verbal violence. Other forms of victimization observed were offensive responses, insults, group violence, selectivity, particularly forced removal, and denied entry to WhatsApp groups. It leads our attention toward social media applications that distress the students.

Even During the covid 19 pandemic, when people were very much relied on online platforms due to social distancing and strict quarantine, they were suffering from depression and behavioral and mental problems. At the same time, especially the residents of Hubei, China, were facing all these problems and excessive cyberbullying, agitation, stigma, and racism peaked due to the first case of covid being reported in the city. This online bullying has severe psychological effects, and people were opting for various coping strategies. So here, the efforts must be taken unitedly by the worldwide online media, the health care workers, and the Government to prevent the secondary disaster of the pandemic in which cyberbullying was one of the major issues of concern for China (Yang, 2021 ).

5 Social media and cyberbullying in higher education institutions

Web 2.0 has initiated social media users, especially youngsters, to inculcate their viewpoints and express their thought processes in a virtual environment. Social media is a crucial platform that has encouraged students to expand interaction and has leveled up their performance. Despite its indispensable assets, liabilities cannot be overlooked in any condition (Sarwar et al., 2019 ). Cyberbullying has expanded with the higher usage of techno-savvy gadgets. The present times have modified common bullying into the involvement of harm, cruel thinking, and blackmailing through networking sites to the victims, especially on college campuses resulting in an increasing number of dropouts and suicides (Washington, 2015 ).

Higher command of mobile phones by adolescents has resulted in easy access to social networking sites without any fear. It has been increasingly contributing to cyberbullying, which has long-term adverse effects. Very few believe that it has a positivity that students become tough and develop a tendency of resilience and self-advocacy. Furthermore, it has been visualized that students do not know whether their institutions have a cyberbullying policy, and most institutions are not even prepared for handling such situations (Luker & Curchack, 2017 ).

Nowadays as the graduates are highly active over the internet for knowledge sharing, collaborative learning, and research activities which is beneficial yet resulted in the high indulgence of youth in cyberbullying, leading to negative impacts like aggressiveness, depression, low self-esteem, and also suicidal thoughts (Rasheed et al., 2020 ). Although there have been a myriad number of profits availed by everyone in the status quo, many people still undergo the undesirable effects that may alter one's privacy, security, and emotional health status. From bygone days, it has been witnessed that Cyberbullying is an urgent issue on the social platform that can turn out either short-range, long-range, temporary, or permanent effects on one's life (Abaido, 2020 ). According to Yoshida (Yoshida, 2021 ), different kinds of online behaviors are shown by university students on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. They form different communities based on their knowledge or depending upon fan following while swinging their interest from one topic to another. They share their viewpoints on these online platforms where different audiences are reading them. Also, they lack sociability skills and have less knowledge about these online communities. Consequently, this incapability may lead to cyber victimization.

Even the young social media users of color have faced a lot of racial discrimination over the online platforms leading to mental health risks resulting in depressive symptoms, anxiety, and illicit drug use (Tao & Fisher, 2022 ).

Online gaming among young adults is prevailing at a high level with time as a good source of entertainment, but it's being observed to be one of the leading causes of bullying. Hence, online games have resulted in more aggression, violence, conflicts, emotional distress, mental torture, and physical arousals where family and community can act as an inevitable source to reduce the addiction to the internet and strengthen their mental health (Huang et al., 2021 ).

Moreover, students being cyberbullied do not share such incidences with their parents because they fear losing internet access. So, parents could not be assumed as their support system. The other approach is complaining, where a shocking dimension has been observed: there are no policies or federal laws dealing with cyberbullying directly; a federal system covers only a few aspects of cyberbullying (Washington, 2015 ). Another study has also concluded that victims are unable to express any kind of violent cybercrime behavior faced them, presuming that it can result in limited access to internet sources and gadgets by their parents. The victims also perceive that adults cannot understand the issues faced by them. Hence, this depicts a huge gap between teachers, parents, and adolescents (Ngo, et al., 2021 ).

Due to Cyberbullying on-campus, students are experiencing various adverse effects, including feelings of sadness, embarrassment, humiliation, desire for vengeance, and physical and mental retaliation (Cassidy et al., 2017 ). Despite strict rules and awareness, students do not come forward to report cyberbullying. They are afraid, feel self-ashamed, cry, become depressed, suffer from anxiety, experience insomnia, or even miss school (Watts et al., 2017 ).

Cyberbullying is considered one of the potential risks of relying on online technologies and has been one of the significant technology abuse examples in the past decade due to its harmful and sometimes deadly impacts. Counseling acts as a tonic and curative approach that may aid the cyberbullying sufferers in overcoming their fears and issues faced by them. Initiating a hotline or a mobile application can also turn into a valuable perspective. To foster counseling, short seminars and discussion sessions must be taken out regularly among the scholars. Bystanders should also take some initiative to eradicate online bullying situations by breaking their silence at the very right time (Abaido, 2020 ).

6 Indian government initiatives and legal provisions

Various laws of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1860 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) listed under legal provisions can be used to fight cyberbullies. A National Cybercrime reporting portal has been established for complaints, and a few more government initiatives are discussed.

6.1 Legal provisions

6.1.1 it act, 2000.

IT ACT, 2000 Footnote 6 came into power to provide legal identification regarding the exchange of data electronically. In computer-related offenses, up to 3 to 5 years imprisonment and rupees one lac fine or both can be charged and, in some cases, even more. Under IT Act, sections 66 A, 66 C, 66 D, and 66 E, punishment is given to the person involved in any crime of insulting or fraud or privacy violation, etc., utilizing the internet, social media, and other digital media devices. IT act, section 67, 67A, and section 67 B deal with publishing and transmitting material containing the sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form. All these sections of IT Acts are explained in Table 8 of the Appendix.

6.1.2 The Indian penal code 1860

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Footnote 7 is the official criminal code of India that covers all substantive aspects of criminal law, which came into existence in the year 1862 in all British Presidencies. IPC Sections 292A, 354 A, 354 D, 499, 507, and 509 punish people who indulge in blackmailing, harassment, stalking, threatening, intruding, etc. (for details of IPC laws refer to Table 8 of Appendix).

6.1.3 POCSO ACT, 2012

Protection of children from sexual offenses (POCSO) is a complete law for protecting children below 18 years from the heinous acts of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography.

6.2 Government initiatives

6.2.1 the nirbhaya funds scheme.

It is an initiative of the Government of India under the Nirbhaya funds scheme for ensuring the safety of women and children. The ministry of Home affairs generated a single number (112) Footnote 8 which was under the Emergency response support system (ERSS), to cope with any emergencies where immediate assistance from police, fire, and rescue, or any other help is required. https://112.gov.in/

6.2.2 Cybercrime prevention against women and children scheme (CCPWC Scheme)

Under the CCPWA scheme, Footnote 9 for cybercrime prevention and setting up of Cyber forensic training labs grant of INR 87.12 Crore was released to states/UTs. Moreover, INR 6 crores were given to enhance police and prosecutors' training sessions. Under the CCPWA scheme, different units are established that are responsible for reporting online criminal acts and their investigations, analyzing cybercrime reports, and detecting any alarming cybercrime situation. Various components of the CCPWA scheme are given in Table 9 of the Appendix.

6.2.3 Indian cybercrime coordination centre (I4C) scheme

To prevent unnecessary use of social space, I4C acts as an essential tool to fight against cybercrime. Moreover, it is supported by fast pace technological advancements and international agencies to work on several activities. Its objective is to deal with different issues faced on online media, giving special attention to women and children victims and creating awareness among youth. Various components of the I4C scheme are mentioned in Table 10 of the Appendix .

6.3 Cybercrime reporting portals & helplines

6.3.1 national cyber crime reporting portal.

NCCR portal is an initiative of the Government of India that submits online complaints by the victims who have faced criticism, especially women and children. Footnote 10 They provide immediate action on the filed complaints with the help of local police. Since the technology has been overstepping every conventional method, it has also outrun the offline process of filing cybercrime complaints. The cybercrime complaints can be registered on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, which facilitates the nationwide cybercrime complaints and makes it feasible for the victims/complainants to have access to the cybercrime cells and all the information related to cybercrimes at their fingertips. The written complaint can also be filed by registering the crime-faced victim at a nearby cyber crime cell. Cyber Crime Portal State-wise, Nodal cyber cell officers and grievance officers' contact details and e-mail IDs are provided on the website https://cybercrime.gov.in/ . Footnote 11

6.3.2 Portal for women and children

Various helpline numbers and complaint portals for women and children are listed in Table 1 .

6.4 Anti-bullying or cyberbullying laws in India for schools and colleges

With the high increase in bullying in schools, especially in boarding schools in India, the HRD ministry has launched anti-ragging committees to reduce the rate of bullying. These committees work on punishing students who are indulged in the activities along with rustication in case of high involvement in bullying. The University Grants Commission comes forward with anti-ragging rules in universities and colleges with proper UGC regulations on pulling out the rate of ragging in higher institutions. Footnote 12

6.5 Other portals & awareness campaigns

The Ministry of Home Affairs has launched a centralized online cybercrime registration portal that has helped victims to register a complaint online rather than visiting the police station. Along with that Delhi and Indore police has a cyber cell to make people aware regarding filing a complaint online by the following link:

http://www.cybercelldelhi.in/

http://www.indorepolice.org/cyber-crime.php

https://ifflab.org/how-to-file-a-cyber-crime-complaint-in-india/

Chief Minister Sarbananda Sonowal launched the cyber safety awareness campaign in Assam on the occasion of the foundation day of the Assam police, which joined with cyber security and formed a Cyber Peace Foundation (CPF).

Awareness Campaign on Cyber Security By DSEJ

Jammu has made an awareness campaign for up to 2 Lakh stakeholders of the School Education Department on cyber hygiene and security held on 15 January 2021 along with online as well as offline counseling sessions on a large scale covering cyber grooming, cyberbullying, phishing, safeguarding social media accounts, online banking frauds, lottery frauds, remote access scams, social media privacy policy, etc. Many such awareness campaigns are organized nationwide by the respective Governments.

7 A Case study based on a survey

In this section, to investigate the problem of Cyberbullying in higher educational institutions, a survey has been conducted among university/college-going students that provide clear insights into the data analysis and case study outcomes.

7.1 Data analysis methodology

It includes the manual about designing the questionnaire for the survey, the process of collecting data, pre-processing data, techniques used to conduct the survey, and finally, applying algorithms to the collected data for evaluating the outcomes.

7.1.1 Designing the questionnaire

An online survey was conducted to gain insights into the feedback given by students on the cyberbullying faced by students of higher education institutions in India. The survey contains a questionnaire designed to collect information on the cyberbullying experience, various issues faced by students related to cyberbullying, the dependence of cyberbullying victimization on other parameters, institutional support, and feedback from respondents to stop cyberbullying. According to Lesley Andres, while preparing for analysis, we should identify the research problem questions and locate ourselves in the research design and process for designing an effective survey questionnaire (Andres, 2012 ). The quality of data analysis through survey questions depends on various factors like topics covered in the questionnaire, wording, format, and organization (Singh et al., 2021 ), (Williams, 2003 ).

In this study, a total of 72 questions were classified into five sections: the first is about general information and computer knowledge, the second one is related to cyberbullying victimization, the third is for cyberbullying and cyber-bystander, fourth discusses the actions and effects of cyberbullying victimization, and the last one is about institutional support and suggestion. A google form was prepared, and the specific link was shared over the e-mails, and social media platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc. The database was collected over three weeks, and due to the length of the questionnaire, 220 responses were received. 80% of respondents belong to the age group of 17 to 24. The general information about the participants, moreover their devices in use, and social networking sites being used most frequently are listed in Table 2 . 60% of our participants are hostellers, where most of the students are doing their bachelor's degrees. WhatsApp is the most popularly used application among the students, being used by 88% of users, and 60% (approx.) of users have observed cyberbullying at their campuses.

7.1.2 Data pre-processing

To remove the anomalies of the database collected in the survey few steps like data cleaning, filtration, removing duplicate responses, and the language translation are done (Maier et al., 2018 ). For statistically evaluating the responses, such as finding the correlation between various parameters, the Likert scale was used to convert responses to equivalent numerical values. Furthermore, the textual answers or the suggestions obtained from users are also pre-processed manually and with the help of algorithmic techniques of R package libraries for grammatical correction, removal of numbers, special characters, misleading information, and using google translator for conversion of regional language to English wherever required.

7.1.3 Outcomes of survey questions

In a survey question, it was asked to give their opinion on which gender is bullied more :

32.3% believe that females are bullied more than males, 10.5% believe that males are bullied more, 47.7% believe that both are bullied equally, and 9.5% prefer not to say. But the actual results of the survey go with the belief of the majority, where we find out that 54% of males are bullied, and approximately 51% of females are bullied. In fact not a significant difference between their bullying percentages.

Definition of cyberbullying: An understanding by respondents

To have an idea, according to the respondents' about what cyberbullying is? According to the responses received, more than 50% of the respondents were clear about it, and the majority believe that threatening someone, taking or sharing someone's embarrassing photographs, and posting something hurtful on social media are major cyberbullying acts. Table 3 depicts the rest of the percentage of the views about Cyberbullying definition.

Views on cyberbullying: Is it a normal part of the online world, and nothing could be done to stop it: Here, the views of male and female respondents do not deviate much. For both of them, it is unacceptable. 70% of the respondents disagree with the view that it is normal we can't stop it, and only 15% of the respondents take it as a normal activity, as shown in Fig. 3 .

Cyberbullying is a normal part of the online world

Actual percentage facing bullying classified under different categories and factors:

In Table 4 , the percentage distribution of bullied and non-bullied participants is mentioned depending on various factors like gender, social media usage hours, computer proficiency, area of residence, parent's talk, and their qualification. According to the number of hours of social media usage, on average, students use it for 4 h, and respondents using it for more than 4 h are bullied more than others. In addition, more than half of the participants have good computer knowledge, but not much dependency is seen between the computer proficiency and the percentage bullied by implementing the Chi-Square test using the Likert scale in Rstudio (Mircioiu & Atkinson, 2017 ). A p-value of 0.135 has been obtained, which is insignificant for showing a relation between computer proficiency and bullying percentage (Rana & Singhal, 2015 ). A weak relation is found between parents' talk and bullying; those whose parents frequently talk about cyberbullying are bullied a little bit less as compared to those whose parents never or very rarely talk about it. No correlation is found between the area of residence, and parental qualification of the students bullied.

When you were bullied, it was related to:

Of the respondents who have been cyberbullied due to multiple reasons, the majority of victims do not know the reason, and the most prevalent reason is their physical appearance and religion. Due to their sexual orientation and race, they have also faced bullying, and disability is also one of the reasons. The percentage of various reasons is given in Fig. 4 .

Reasons for cyberbullying

Questions related to CYBER VICTIMIZATION, CYBERBULLYING, and CYBER BYSTANDER:

Out of total female respondants, 51.30% of females faced bullying, 11.30% were unsure, and 37.39% were not bullied. In the case of males, 55.24% of males faced bullying, 14.24% were unsure, and 30.48% were not bullied at all. Among the persons with disabilities, 83% of males and 75% of females having any type of disability faced cyberbullying.

Out of the total bullies, 64.40% of bullies are male, and 35.60% of bullies are female. 18.26% of all the female participants accepted that they had bullied someone, and approximately twice the women's percentage, i.e., 36.19% of male participants have bullied someone. But in the case of the cyber bystanders, there is not much difference in their percentages. 44.34% of the female participants and 56.19% of male participants were cyber bystanders, respectively. Various questions and their response percentages related to cyber victimization, cyberbullying, and cyber bystanders are listed in Table 5 .

Actions are taken after being Cyberbullied & Effects on victims:

In the survey conducted, more than half of the students (51.8%) are not aware of cyberbullying laws, and 58.2% have no clue where to report or what action should be taken against the bully. It has been seen that among the cyber victims, 65.15% of students know the bully.

Various persons can experience cyberbullying, and according to the responses, among the students bullied, 40.20% of cyberbullying was done by their friends, 9.28% by their relatives or cousins, 31.95% was done by their peer group, 25.77% by any senior, 14.43% by a junior and 53.60% by unknown. As mentioned in Table 6 , most cyberbullying victims feel comfortable discussing the matter with their friends or with nobody, only one-quarter of the percentage discuss it with their parents.

In Table 6 , various questions related to cyberbullying victims, their reaction toward a bully, their parent's reaction, how the cyberbullying affected studies and work, and the victim's feelings are mentioned with percentages. Most of the victims felt angry and depressed, and around half of the victims asked the bully to stop this behavior.

As shown in Fig.  5 , the R studio corrplot function is used to find correlations among various parameters, and it is observed that both the work and health of the cyberbullying victim are greatly affected.

Correlation graph

In further detailed questioning, it is observed that 62% of cyberbullying victims ignore the messages of bullies so that he/they would lose interest, whereas 25% have sent threatening messages to bullies about doing such acts. Approximately 27% seek online advice on being bullied. Due to lack of awareness, only 40% of the victims save the cyberbullying messages or images as evidence. 32.4% of victims changed their contact details like phone number, e-mail address, chat name, or profile information visibility on social networking sites. 79% of the victims have blocked the bully so that he/she could not contact more.

Institutional support

It has been observed that higher education institutions do not provide much support to the students and make them aware of this online behavior, as 68.2% of the colleges and universities are not taking any initiative to make students aware by conducting any awareness tutorial or campaign. Only 42.8% of students who were bullied have taken guidance from university. Furthermore, 68.6% of the students have no idea where to report or to find the anti-bullying policy in their institution. Approximately 69.5% think their institutions are not doing enough to tackle the problem.

7.1.4 Topic modeling to extract relevant topics

For analysis of the feedback given by students to stop cyberbullying in institutions, using the R framework, LDA has been used. To extract the optimum number of topics in the feedback database, we used Griffith's 2004 (Griffiths & Steyvers, 2004 ) and Cau Juan's 2009 (Cao et al., 2009 ) metrics for our study in the R framework. Griffith represents an approach where the number of topics is optimal when the log-likelihood for data becomes maximum, whereas Cau Juan is used for measuring the stability of the topic and the minimum value on the graph represents the optimal number of topics. As from Fig.  6 number of topics lies between 4 to 9; in the upper graph minimum value is to be selected and from the lower one maximum value is to find the range of an optimal number of topics.

Determining the optimal number of topics

The latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) is a statistical model that enables unidentified groups to explain why some sections of the data are related (Blei et al., 2003 ). If observations are words gathered into documents, it is assumed that each document is a mix of a small number of subjects and that each word's occurrence is due to one of the document's themes called topics. The time complexity of LDA is O(mnt  +  t 3 ) and memory requirements of O(mn  +  mt  +  nt) , where m is the number of samples, n is the number of features, and t  =  min (m,n). It is impossible to use LDA when both m and n are big (Cai et al., 2008 ). The working of LDA is shown in the Algorithm . As there does not exist any prior information on the number of topics in our corpus, we used LDAvis, which generates interactive charts where each bubble represents the topic, and topic per word distribution is represented in the bar graph plot, selection of a bubble highlights the words and bars accordingly. The prevalence of topics depends upon the bubble size. For these graphs, the "optimum" value of λ was about 0.6, which resulted in a 70% likelihood of right identification (values of λ around 0 and 1 resulted in estimated proportions of correct replies closer to 53 and 63 percent, respectively). This is evidence that ordering words according to relevance (rather than strictly in decreasing order of probability) can increase subject interpretability (Sievert & Shirley, 2014 ).

LDA has extracted the discussion topics from the set of views database submitted by students to tackle this problem, explore all the main keywords, and highlight areas that need improvement. The findings indicate the formation of five clusters, the most frequent and interdependent keywords with other clusters or topics as depicted in Fig.  7 . The number of clusters lies in the predicted range of optimal number of topics. From the topic modeling analysis, "Awareness" is the most frequent term and critical factor in curbing cyberbullying. The classification of most frequently used words and the keywords grouped according to LDA are given in Table 7 .

LDAvis topic extraction graph

8 Discussion: Analysis of conducted survey

With the advancement of technology, social media has become a vital part of students' lives, either for their studies or entertainment. The major challenge is protecting the students from cyberbullying that can significantly affect their work and studies. Our focus is on examining cyberbullying among college/university students. For this, we divided our research into two modules. In the first one, we analyzed the Indian Government initiatives. While exploring legal provisions, it is found that so many laws, online portals and helplines are available. Strict laws implemented against cyberbullying are covered under IT Act 2000, IT Act Section 66A, IT Act Section 66 B, IT Act Section 66C, IT Act Section 66D, IT Act Section 66E, IT Act Sect. 67, IT Act Section 67A, IT Act Section 67B; under Indian Penal Code 1860, IPC Section 292 A, IPC Section 354A, IPC Section 354D, IPC Section 499, IPC Section 507, and POCSO Act 2012. Under various schemes like the Nirbhaya fund scheme, the Government launches a women and helpline number 112 for emergency response. Under CCPW Scheme, multiple labs and units have been established for cybercrime online reporting, the investigation by professional teams, and research and development. I4C scheme has also established many units for creating awareness, reporting, and inspection. MHA has established National Cybercrime reporting portals both online and offline. Moreover, the Ministry of Women and Child Development has generated a women's helpline number 118 and also a dedicated e-mail address to redress their grievances. Separate Childline 1098, NCW helpline, Mahila bol helpline, and many state government portals are available. Various awareness campaigns are launched at the state as well as international levels. In second module, a case study was performed on cyberbullying in higher education institutions.

Section-wise analyses of the conducted survey

General information: 97% of the higher education institutional students (respondents) have electronic gadgets, except the few either do not have internet connectivity or a personal device. Even in the UNICEF case study, it was found that 99 percent of both urban and rural internet users aged 12 + years used mobile phones to access the internet. Footnote 14 WhatsApp and Instagram are the most widely used social networking sites that make them more vulnerable to experience cyberbullying. The responses of the participants depict that they are not much aware of the cyberbullying term, the legal provisions, and other governmental policies against cyberbullying. At the same time, it is observed that the majority of students reacted strongly to stop this behavior.

Cyberbullying victimization and dependency of Cyberbullying on various demographic parameters: According to the survey results, more than half of the respondents have experienced cyberbullying, which is similar to the percentage obtained in a study by Aizenkot and Kashy-Rosenbaum (Aizenkot & Kashy-Rosenbaum, 2020 ). It is concluded that males are cyberbullied more than females. Moreover, the person with a disability is the most affected as 80% of them face cyberbullying. Higher hours spent on social networking sites also lead to cyberbullying victimization. This case study found that Parental awareness and discussing online issues with youngsters have played a vital role in preventing them from being bullied, which resembles the conclusion of a study conducted in Vietnam by Ho et al. (Ho et al., 2020 ). The majority of the participants are not aware of the reason for being bullied but based on physical appearance and religion, cyberbullying is most prevalent among students. Approximately half of the participants have experienced cyber defaming.

Cyberbullying and Cyber Bystander: 18.26% of the female participants accepted that they had bullied someone, and 36% of males accepted it. The survey results depict that half of the participants are cyber bystanders. The most prevalent type of cyberbullying in this survey is leaving someone without friends by either blocking or eliminating them from social groups, and similar victimization was observed in a study by Aizenkot and Kashy-Rosenbaum (Aizenkot & Kashy-Rosenbaum, 2020 ). Cyber-by-standing is more common in male students, as one-third of the students have witnessed someone posting something wrong on social media to embarrass a classmate or use abusive language. Peer bullying is commonly seen among university students.

Actions taken and the affect of cyberbullying on the victim: Only 42% of the victims report to the police, and 36% of the students get back to the bully either personally or virtually. Cyberbullying has affected both the physical and mental health of the victim, and they experience aggressiveness and depression at most times. It also affects their relationship with friends and family and their work and studies. Also, the participants said that they have stopped using various social networking sites, restricted their privacy settings, and adopted other necessary measures to avoid bullying.

Institutional support and suggestions : Cyberbullying Awareness is the need of the hour, various institutions have cyberbullying policies, but the students are not aware of that. Students need guidance, and awareness sessions and campaigns should be organized at the college/ university level. As per students' suggestive measures, there should be proper counseling sessions, teacher support, guidance to tackle online issues, a complaint portal, strict laws, and concrete action against the bully. Institutions should also teach the ethics of social media usage.

9 How to combat cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can be significantly reduced with effective interpersonal communication among the peer group, and also bystanders can play a vital role in preventing cyberbullying if they intervene immediately on behalf of victims (Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014 ). From the case study, it has been seen that the majority of students were cyber bystanders; they should come forward and encourage reporting such issues. The students are not much aware of the cyberbulling policies, so as suggested by Watts (Watts et al., 2017 ) anonymous reporting should be introduced, and internet etiquette should be studied.

It has been analyzed that colleges/universities are not doing enough to deal with this problem. In educational institutions, policy development is a pressing need that may be addressed using focus groups to identify effective remedies for cyberbullying. In addition, institutional leaders should consider a cyberbullying policy in terms of circumstances, and aside from that, leaders may improve their workers' knowledge abilities by conducting surveys and investigative sessions on cyberbullying (Luker & Curchack, 2017 ). The study depicted that approximately 70% of the respondents feel that institutions are not doing enough to curb cyberbullying so there is a need for university professionals to effectively analyze and mitigate unfavorable internet interactions on their campuses. All students and faculty members require assistance and counseling (Cassidy et al., 2017 ).

Creating awareness is the primary need as per students' feedback. The government has launched various portals, helplines for helping women and children, cyber cells, and reporting portals for online issues but students are not much aware of these initiatives and legal provisions. There is a need to raise awareness. Insulting someone or defaming or making fun over social media are the most prevalent among educational institutions. The study findings by (Ngo et al., 2021 ) and (Hutson et al., 2018 ) have suggested several measures to curb cyberbullying. To begin, educational campaigns should be conducted to boost awareness and attitudes against cyberbullying across youth, parents, and teachers, inspiring them to become proactive in mediating and combating cyberbullying practices. Knowledge and practices on cyberbullying, communication and internet usage skills, education on digital citizenship, prosocial behaviors, empathy, and coping techniques with cyberbullying should all be included in these programs. From the case study it is observed that 70% victims feel angry, 43% depressed and one-third feel lonely and helpless. So, regular training sessions should be held to assist teenagers in developing the skills and talents necessary to actively cope with cyberbullying, assist other victims, and prevent them from being involved in cyberbullying themselves. Furthermore, institutions, healthcare providers, and leaders should promote parents' participation in suspecting and addressing cyberbullying and its implications among youngsters. This positive parent–child interaction may inspire them to seek help when confronted with adversity. In addition, Parents must exercise restraint and active mediation to raise awareness, as teenagers lack understanding of online threats and the ability to self-regulate their internet activities owing to a lack of experience (Steinfeld, 2021 ).

Also, the student Services at universities should design interventions where they concentrate not just on prophylactic work with techniques to eliminate cyberbullying but also on fostering relationships with individuals from whom victims may seek assistance with their online concerns (Yubero et al., 2017 ). Cyberbullying can be significantly reduced with effective interpersonal communication among the peer group, and also bystanders can play a vital role in preventing cyberbullying if they intervene immediately on behalf of victims (Rafferty & Vander Ven, 2014 ). As observed in cyber victimization questionnaire, cyberbullying faced by the majority is insulting someone, saying something untrue about a person or making fun of others over social media, or excluding others from online groups. Peer assistance initiatives appear to be successful in this regard where with proper training, students assist in educating their peers about using technology responsibly and cyberbullying by relating their experiences and strategies to avoid and address it.

A convenient, user-friendly, and cost-effective conversation bots (chatbots) can be used in anti-bullying programs to raise awareness regarding bullying and help change students' attitudes toward bullying problems (Oh et al., 2020 ). Moreover, to avoid consolidation and limit the impact on victims, all colleges should broaden their harassment policies, including cyberbullying; these protocols must include precise steps to be taken if such episodes are discovered. In the future, therapeutic assistance and victim protection should be included in protocols.

10 Conclusion and recommendation

With the technical advancement, and adoption of blended learning as a new paradigm in higher education, social media users are also increasing day by day, and the most significant impact is seen on the youngsters. Lack of knowledge about the ethics of using social media and the easy availability of the internet lead to cyberbullying. While the social networking sites act as a boon to the students, providing them an environment of collaborative learning even in the pandemics like covid19, at the same time, it may lead to cyberbullying victimization by exposing them to the hate and aggressive behavior on online platforms. Students have misused social media to humiliate or harass other students. So, regardless of the convenience offered by social media, the constant exposure to and communication with online technologies make the users susceptible to certain online interactions that may be beneficial at some point but put their safety and emotional and psychological well-being at risk. Over time, the Indian Government has launched various schemes (Nirbhaya Scheme, CCPW Scheme, I4C Scheme), online reporting portals (National cybercrime reporting portal), helpline numbers for women and children, and amended the required legal provisions of the IT Act and Indian Penal Code 1860 against the cyberbullying. State governments have also launched various awareness campaigns. As per UGC regulation, educational institutions have also stricken their anti-bullying policies. But the success of these initiatives depends upon the responses of the participants of the survey. It has been seen that the students are not much aware of all these laws against cyberbullying. More than half of the participants have faced cyberbullying, and many of them admitted that they had bullied others also. Cyberbullying victimization is dependent upon various factors like parents' guidance, the number of hours of social media usage, etc. Parental advice and lesser usage of social media may prevent the students from being bullied. Peer bullying is the most prevalent among college/university male students, and Cyberbullying has affected the students psychologically as well as physically; moreover, it degraded their performance at work/studies. Anger and depression are the major problems experienced by the victims. Two-thirds of the students are unaware of the cyberbullying policies and laws. After analyzing the results, it is suggested that the institutions and authorities organize seminars and counseling sessions to create awareness. They should follow strict measures to tackle cyberbullying, take appropriate actions, and establish complaint portals at the college/university level. The study covers a lot about the initiatives, provides insights into the current cyberbullying situation at higher education institutions in India, and concludes that more campaigns and seminars should be conducted to make students aware of all these legal provisions. At the same time, the study has a few limitations also: Firstly, based on popularity, only a few government initiatives and legal provisions have been listed, only national-level portals and helplines are mentioned, and State-wise programs and campaigns are not discussed. Secondly, the sample chosen may have many constraints due to the length of the survey; only limited responses are received, and the respondents may belong to the same environment and face similar problems. In the future, we will try to overcome these limitations.

https://ncrb.gov.in/en/Crime-in-India-2020

https://www.india.com/news/india/mbbs-student-commits-suicide-in-kerala-facebook-post-hints-at-cyber-bullying-2639753/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-42617237

https://www.firstpost.com/india/delhi-police-arrests-instagram-group-admin-in-bois-locker-room-case-27-other-members-identified-8337451.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/37211521.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

https://legislative.gov.in/actsofparliamentfromtheyear/information-technology-act-2000

https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf

https://112.gov.in/

https://www.mha.gov.in/division_of_mha/cyber-and-information-security-cis-division/Details-about-CCPWC-CybercrimePrevention-against-Women-and-Children-Scheme

https://cybercrime.gov.in/Webform/crmcondi.aspx .

https://cybercrime.gov.in/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.myadvo.in/blog/must-read-what-is-cyber-bullying-or-anti-bullying-laws-in-india/amp/

https://indiaeducationdiary.in/mega-awareness-campaign-on-cyber-security-by-dsej-concludes/

https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/16511/file/India%20Case%20Study.pdf

Abaido, G. M. (2020). Cyberbullying on social media platforms among university students in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 25 , 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1669059

Article   Google Scholar  

Aizenkot, D., & Kashy-Rosenbaum, G. (2020). Exposure to cyberbullying in WhatsApp classmates‘ groups and classroom climate as predictors of students‘ sense of belonging: A multi-level analysis of elementary, middle and high schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 108 , 104614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104614

Alamri, M. M., Almaiah, M. A., & Al-Rahmi, W. M. (2020). Social media applications affecting students’ academic performance: A model developed for sustainability in higher education. Sustainability, 12 (16), 6471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166471

Al-Rahmi, W., Yahaya, N., Alturki, U., Alrobai, A., Aldraiweesh, A., Omar Alsayed, A., & Kamin, Y. (2020). Social media – based collaborative learning: the effect on learning success with the moderating role of cyberstalking and cyberbullying. Interactive Learning Environments , 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1728342

Andres, L. (2012). Designing and doing survey research . SAGE.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ansary, N. S. (2020). Cyberbullying: Concepts, theories, and correlates informing evidence-based best practices for prevention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 50 , 101343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.101343

Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet Allocation. Journal of Machine Learning, 3 , 993–1012.

MATH   Google Scholar  

Cai, D., He, X., & Han, J. (2008). Training Linear Discriminant Analysis in Linear Time. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDE.2008.4497429

Cao, J., Xia, T., Li, J., Zhang, Y., & Tang, S. (2009). A density-based method for adaptive LDA model selection. Neurocomputing, 72 , 1775–1781.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2017). Adversity in University: Cyberbullying and Its Impacts on Students, Faculty and Administrators. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14 . Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/8/888

Çevik, Ö., Ata, R., & Çevik, M. (2021). Bullying and victimization among Turkish adolescents: the predictive role of problematic internet use, school burnout and parental monitoring. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 3203–3230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10410-1

Chapin, J. (2016). Adolescents and cyber bullying: The precaution adoption process model. Education and Information Technologies, 21 , 719–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-014-9349-1

Digital Around the World. (2021). Retrieved from DataReportal – Global Digital Insights: https://datareportal.com/global-digital-overview

Griffiths, T. L., & Steyvers, M. (2004). Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 , 5228–5235.

Ho, T. T., Li, C., & Gu, C. (2020). Cyberbullying victimization and depressive symptoms in Vietnamese university students: Examining social support as a mediator. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2020.100422

Huang, J., Zhong, Z., Zhang, H., & Li, L. (2021). Cyberbullying in social media and online games among Chinese college students and its associated factors. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 , 4819. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094819

Hutson, E., Kelly, S., & Militello, L. K. (2018). Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 15 , 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12257

Khine, A. T., Saw, Y. M., Htut, Z. Y., Khaing, C. T., Soe, H., Swe, K. K., & Thike, T. (2020). Assessing risk factors and impact of cyberbullying victimization among university students in Myanmar: A cross-sectional study. PLOS ONE, 15 , e0227051.

Legate, N., Weinstein, N., & Przybylski, A. K. (2019). Parenting strategies and adolescents’ cyberbullying behaviors: Evidence from a preregistered study of parent-child dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 , 399–409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0962-y

Luker, J. M., & Curchack, B. C. (2017). International perceptions of cyberbullying within higher education. Adult Learning, 28 , 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517719337

Maier, D., Waldherr, A., Miltner, P., Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A., Keinert, A., . . . Adam, S. (2018). Applying LDA Topic Modeling in Communication Research: Toward a Valid and Reliable Methodology. Communication Methods and Measures , 93-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2018.1430754

Mircioiu, C., & Atkinson, J. (2017). A comparison of parametric and non-parametric methods applied to a likert scale. Pharmacy . https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy5020026

Ngo, A. T., Tran, A. Q., Tran, B. X., Nguyen, L. H., Hoang, M. T., Nguyen, T. H., . . . Ho, C. S. (2021). Cyberbullying among school adolescents in an urban setting of a developing country: Experience, coping strategies, and mediating effects of different support on psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 , 930. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661919

Nguyen, H. T., Nakamura, K., Seino, K., & Vo, V. (2020). Relationships among cyberbullying, parental attitudes, self-harm and suicidal behavior among adolescents: Results from a school-based survey in Vietnam. BMC Public Health, 20 , 476. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08500-3

Oh, E. Y., Song, D., & Hong, H. (2020). Interactive computing technology in anti-bullying education: The effects of Conversation-Bot’s role on K-12 students’ attitude change toward bullying problems. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 58 , 200–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119839177

Peled, Y. (2019). Cyberbullying and its influence on academic, social, and emotional development of undergraduate students. Heliyon . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01393

Rafferty, R., & Vander Ven, T. (2014). “I Hate Everything About You”: A qualitative examination of cyberbullying and On-Line aggression in a college sample. Deviant Behavior, 35 , 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.849171

Rana, R., & Singhal, R. (2015). Chi-square test and its application in hypothesis testing. Journal of the Practice of Cardiovascular Sciences , 69–71.

Rasheed, M. I., Malik, M. J., Pitafi, A. H., Iqbal, J., Anser, M. K., & Abbas, M. (2020). Usage of social media, student engagement, and creativity: The role of knowledge sharing behavior and cyberbullying. Computers & Education, 159 , 104002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104002

Runions, K. C., Shaw, T., Bussey, K., Thornberg, R., Salmivalli, C., & Cross, D. S. (2019). Moral disengagement of pure bullies and bully/victims: Shared and distinct mechanisms. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48 , 1835–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01067-2

Sam, D., Bruce, D., Agyemang, C., Amponsah, B., & Arkoful, H. (2019). Cyberbullying victimization among high school and university students in Ghana. Deviant Behavior, 40 , 1305–1321. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1493369

Sarwar, B., Zulfiqa, S., Aziz, S., & Chandia, E. K. (2019). Usage of social media tools for collaborative learning: The effect on learning success with the moderating role of cyberbullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57 , 246–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748415

Sievert, C., & Shirley, K. E. (2014). LDAvis: A method for visualizing and interpreting topics. Workshop on Interactive Language Learning, Visualization, and Interfaces at the Association for Computational Linguistics . https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1394.3043

Singh, M., Adebayo, S. O., Saini, M., & Singh, J. (2021). Indian government E-learning initiatives in response to COVID-19 crisis: A case study on online learning in Indian higher education system. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 7569–7607.

Steinfeld, N. (2021). Parental mediation of adolescent Internet use: Combining strategies to promote awareness, autonomy and self-regulation in preparing youth for life on the web. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 1897–1920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10342-w

Tanrikulu, I., & Erdur-Baker, Ö. (2021). Motives behind cyberbullying perpetration: A test of uses and gratifications theory. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 , NP6699–NP6724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518819882

Tao, X., & Fisher, C. B. (2022). Exposure to social media racial discrimination and mental health among adolescents of color. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51 , 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01514-z

UNICEF. (2020). Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/ : https://www.unicef.org/end-violence/how-to-stop-cyberbullying

Wang, S. (2021). Standing up or standing by: Bystander intervention in cyberbullying on social media. New Media & Society, 23 , 1379–1397. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820902541

Washington, E. T. (2015). An overview of cyberbullying in higher education. Adult Learning, 26 , 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159514558412

Watts, L. K., Wagner, J., Velasquez, B., & Behrens, P. I. (2017). Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 69 , 268–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.038

Williams, A. (2003). How to … Write and Analyse a Questionnaire. Journal of Orthodontics, 30 , 245–252.

Yang, F. (2021). Coping strategies, cyberbullying behaviors, and depression among Chinese netizens during the COVID-19 pandemic: A web-based nationwide survey. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281 , 138–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.12.023

Yoshida, M. (2021). Investigation of university students’ behaviour in a Heterarchical twitter community. Education and Information Technologies, 26 , 3155–3174.

Yubero, S., Navarro, R., Elche, M., Larrañaga, E., & Ovejero, A. (2017). Cyberbullying victimization in higher education: An exploratory analysis of its association with social and emotional factors among Spanish students. Computers in Human Behavior, 75 , 439–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.037

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Computer Engineering and Technology, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, India

Manpreet Kaur & Munish Saini

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manpreet Kaur .

Ethics declarations

Research involving human participants and/or animals.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Kaur, M., Saini, M. Indian government initiatives on cyberbullying: A case study on cyberbullying in Indian higher education institutions. Educ Inf Technol 28 , 581–615 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11168-4

Download citation

Received : 24 February 2022

Accepted : 14 June 2022

Published : 04 July 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11168-4

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

• Cyberbullying
• Government initiatives
• Higher education
• Social media
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Stacia Walker, MSW

Cost Analysis of K-12 Bullying and Harassment Investigations: a Case Study

In the past couple of decades, data entry and analysis have become more and more prevalent in the school setting. We use data to determine student success rates, which students need interventions (behaviorally and academically), how many staff members are needed, and what curriculums to adopt.

But, have you recently looked at data to see how effective your current investigation process  is?  If we look to data to help drive decisions in our schools, why would we not use data to reflect how our investigation systems are impacting our time and money saved? What if an effective screener could determine within 30 minutes whether or not a formal investigation is needed and save over 7.5 hours of staff time  per concern or complaint? 

I have  asked myself these questions.  For the majority of my nearly two decades in education, I have supported the improvement of district-wide systems.  As a school social worker, I have dedicated my professional career to ensuring students’ social, emotional, and behavioral needs are met.  A large part of this work has focused on the prevention and response to bullying and harassment.  While prevention is the ultimate goal, unfortunately beyond our best efforts, bullying and harassment find its way into our classrooms and we have to be prepared to intervene.  As a result of this, it is important for school districts to ensure the investigation process benefits not only our individual students but our system as a whole.  One way to quantify this is to track the time and resources needed for an investigation in order to evaluate its effectiveness.

When analyzing savings, there are two main areas to consider - time savings and financial savings.  Time savings  assess the amount of time a process saves an organization from interrupting productivity.  In a system such as a school, we can examine the time of staff, administration, as well as students.  Financial savings  is how much money is saved by utilizing the process.  This can include staff per diem, utilization of resources, and even legal costs.  When time savings and financial savings are combined, you are able to evaluate the total cost savings . 

Investigation System Case Study

The data for this blog was collected from a large K-12 school district in the Midwest serving approximately 15,000 students and 3,000 teachers in more than 30 schools.  A five-year sample (three years prior to adopting the McGrath Response System along with two years of data while implementing the McGrath Response System) was analyzed from a district adopting the McGrath Response System. 

About the McGrath Response System

The McGrath Response System  (MRS) is a comprehensive training program designed to help schools identify, report, and investigate discrimination, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and bullying (in all directions, including student-to-student, student-to-staff, staff-to-staff, and staff-to-student victim–offender relationships) compliantly with federal civil rights law. The MRS’ unique strength is that it combines the laws on bullying, sexual harassment, misconduct, and discrimination into a single, efficient system—eliminating the need for separate trainings and systems for each of these issues. MRS provides all of the forms and tools needed to effectively track and complete prompt, thorough investigations. The system provides three levels for handling concerns or complaints: 1) Intake  - receive and appropriately document concerns and complaints, 2) Inquiry Investigation - determine what type of concern or complaint you have, and 3) Full Investigation  - if inquiry determines that bullying or harassment is possible or a formal complaint is received, a full investigation is completed.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Investigation Systems

Investigations, when done thoroughly , can be very time-consuming. Investigations require a healthy balance of acting “promptly” while also being “thorough.”  A determination made too hastily can result in failure to assess critical details.  With the omission of these details, the outcome may be incorrect and could affect the ability of a school district to correct inappropriate behaviors or result in false findings.  While all concerns and complaints must be handled promptly and thoroughly, some are peer conflict while others arise to bullying, harassment, or discrimination. So, how do we know what type of concern or complaint we have?  We need to have a process to screen concerns and complaints.   The McGrath Response System’s Level II Inquiry Investigation is this tool. The Level II process is a quick, yet comprehensive way to gather basic information about the concern or complaint and arrive at an initial determination.  This initial determination illustrates if the complaint was a result of peer conflict/ misunderstanding, or if there is enough evidence that shows a formal investigation is needed.  

Quantifying Time Savings of Investigation Systems

The benefit of this Level II inquiry investigation is where we find the bulk of our time savings.  With our case study, the average formal investigation took a little over 7.5 hours.  The Level II Inquiry Investigation took a mere 30 minutes in comparison.

Prior to adopting the McGrath Response System, a quality screener was not available and as a result, every complaint submitted required a formal investigation.  Once the McGrath Response System was implemented, the Level II inquiry investigation allowed the district to better assess which complaints needed a formal investigation and which ones were peer conflict/misunderstanding.  This resulted in 80% of the concerns/complaints submitted being discovered as peer conflict/misunderstanding or the complaint was revoked ending the investigation process at the Level II inquiry investigation.  During the two years, 117 complaints ended prior to a formal investigation and in turn saved an estimated 906 hours of investigation time.  When thinking of the time saved, this not only includes 906 hours of a staff member’s time that they were investigating but also instructional time.  When an investigation is being conducted, chances are many of the students including witnesses are from the same class.  Each time a student is pulled to be interviewed, the learning is disrupted in that classroom for all students and the student being pulled to interview is missing instruction. 

Another data point to consider in the effectiveness of the investigation process is how many formal investigations result in findings of founded complaints.   A successful screener should aid in the process of identifying which complaints do not rise to the level of potential bullying and harassment and therefore there is no need to continue onto the formal investigation process.  As mentioned, our case study previously formally investigated all complaints .  This led to an average of 34% of all formal investigations resulting in founded cases, meaning 66% of the investigations completed did not rise to the level of bullying and harassment.  Since formal investigations require a lot of time and resources, it is beneficial to only conduct them when they are necessary and after the inquiry investigation identifies that bullying or harassment may be present. In contrast, after implementing the McGrath Response System, 75% of the formal investigations were “founded”.  Interpreting these data points illustrates how a healthy screener helps to focus on which complaints require a formal investigation, saving staff time and resources.

In addition to time saved during the investigation, having a process that is educationally fit and legally sound, such as the McGrath Response System, can protect the district from litigation.  One lawsuit can last anywhere from several months to several years.  During this time, staff may be physically called away during work hours to be deposed and face added stress, which in turn impacts their ability to perform work tasks at their highest potential.

Understanding Cost Savings in Investigation Processes

Now that we have discussed time savings, what does this mean for financial cost savings?  Just as the saying goes, time saved is money saved.  In the two years data was collected for this case study while the district was implementing the McGrath Response System, an estimated $54,327 was saved!  An investigator was being paid $60 an hour for their services of interviewing students, reviewing data sources such as student's past history, and writing reports.  Since an estimated 906 hours were saved as mentioned above, this results in $54,327 that was not needed to pay the investigator. 

Mitigating Legal Risks and Lawsuit Prevention

As mentioned above, this process also can safeguard a district from lawsuits.  The financial costs associated with a lawsuit  are a culmination of many costs.  Many times when the financial cost is discussed, districts consider settlements.  While civil case settlements and jury verdicts vary, they are frequently in the multi-million dollar range.  Beyond this financial burden, the costs that are not discussed as frequently are considerations for lawyers' fees, per diem costs of the employees being deposed during work hours, and substitute costs for coverage of the staff members who are missing time to attend to matters related to the case.  

As you can see by the data presented, an investment in a comprehensive investigation process and training of investigators has proven to be a cost savings –saving time and money. Beyond the cost savings consideration needs to be made for what is best for our students.  Implementing a clear process for investigating, supports student well-being by intervening swiftly and reducing the amount of harm to the students involved.  This is done by ensuring the proper level of investigation is completed and our response matches the severity of the behaviors of concern. 

Recent Posts

How to Conduct a Thorough Bullying Investigation: Protecting Students and Your School

Communication Training for Educational Leadership - A Reflection with McGrath Training Solutions and Flip Steinour

Navigating Impostor Syndrome: A Reflection on Administrator Challenges

• Skip to Navigation
• Skip to Search
• Skip to Main Content

The State election will be held on Saturday 26 November 2022. During the caretaker period (commencing 6.00 pm on Tuesday 1 November 2022) content will only be added to this website in line with the  caretaker conventions .

Bullying and poor workplace cultures: Case studies

These demonstrate that while workplace bullying can come in many different forms, there are a number of common approaches that have been successfully employed to help turn the tide on bullying.

Introduction

Workplace bullying affects the health and wellbeing of staff and the productivity of organisations. It is hard – but not impossible – to tackle.

Organisation A – Be willing to ‘send a strong message’ to your organisation

‘Organisation A’, a Melbourne based organisation with fewer than 100 staff, had its bullying levels peak in 2014. One in five staff reported they had experienced bullying.

Organisation B – ‘Walk the talk’ the importance of leaders living the values

The small organisation with fewer than 100 staff once had very low rates of perceived bullying (11 per cent) – half its sector’s average rate of 22 per cent. However, the rate spiked suddenly.

Organisation C – Making sure ‘every voice has the same volume’

This metropolitan Melbourne entity with fewer than 200 staff, had nearly a quarter of employees experiencing bullying. The problem was coming from the highest levels.

Organisation D – ‘Communication, Communication, Communication’

‘Organisation D’ and its 500 plus mainly Melbourne based staff have been through considerable change and long periods of uncertainty, which affected workplace culture.

Organisation E – Redefining the ‘symbols and rituals’ of organisation culture

Bullying had fluctuated in ‘Organisation E’ for a while but when one in three staff started experiencing bullying, the issue could not be ignored.

Reviewed 2 September 2022

Published 23 June 2022

• Light contrast (default)
• Increased contrast

Bullying case studies

The following case studies provide examples of workplace bullying, its impact on an individual’s health and safety and examples of how employers failed to control the risk.

Workplace bullying is repeated, unreasonable behaviour directed at an employee or group of employees that creates a risk to health and safety.

Bullying of one employee

M started his first job as an apprentice plumber at the age of 16. Two years into his apprenticeship, M made a complaint to WorkSafe about his experiences at work, which included:

• his boss calling him gay and using offensive language towards him
• his boss encouraging other employees to call him names, ask inappropriate questions and make crude insinuations about his personal life
• his boss taking his mobile phone and making him believe he had posted inappropriate comments on a female friend's page
• having a live mouse put down the back of his shirt by another employee
• having his work shorts ripped up by his boss
• having liquid nails squirted into his hair and face by fellow employees
• being beaten with plumbing pipes and having hose connectors thrown at him by his boss and fellow employees
• being spat on by employees
• having a rag doused with methylated spirits held over his mouth by his boss

The impact on M's physical and mental health

For a long time, M felt too afraid of losing his job to complain to his boss about the treatment he was subjected to. However, he eventually became distressed to the point that he was afraid to go to work. He began experiencing nightmares, insomnia, difficulty concentrating, getting angry for no reason, tearfulness, depression, anxiety and stress.

M was eventually diagnosed with a psychological disorder which prevented him from being able to return to work with his employer.

Risk to health and safety

The bullying behaviour that M was subjected to at work impacted his health and safety and resulted in both physical and psychological injury. The employer failed to control that risk as it did not have a bullying policy, and did not provide proper supervision, information, instruction and training to its employees on workplace bullying.

Prosecution outcome

The employer in the actual case was found guilty of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and was convicted and fined $12,500.

Bullying of multiple employees

S, m, l and j's story.

S, M, L and J were part of a group of employees at a commercial bakery where they were required to perform tasks including baking, sandwich preparation, general food preparation, cleaning and delivery of orders to local businesses.

They alleged they had been subjected to verbal, physical and emotional abuse by their employer over a period of two years. The abuse included:

• being called 'pig', 'porky', 'dog' and other derogatory names by their boss
• being sworn at, with their boss using foul and abusive language
• their boss yelling and grunting at them for no apparent reason
• having items such as sticks thrown at them or at their desks
• their boss threatening them with physical harm, including being attacked by dogs and being dissolved in acid
• having trolleys pushed into the backs of their legs
• being labelled as 'useless' and 'a waste of space' by their boss
• being told by their boss to 'go away and die, and make sure you die quietly'

The impact on the victims' physical and mental health

One of the women reported that as a result of the bullying, she had 'lost my friends, my life, my world and my mind'. Others reported that they suffered mental and physical distress, including depression and exacerbation of other psychological conditions. Some went on to suffer relationship breakdowns.

The treatment S, M, L and J and their colleagues were subjected to at work created a risk to their health and safety and resulted in them suffering both physical and psychological injuries. The employer had no systems or procedures in place to regulate that workplace behaviour and no policies or procedures to educate employees in respect of appropriate workplace behaviour and workplace bullying.

The employer in the actual case was found guilty of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and was convicted and fined $50,000.

Bullying of an employee by a manager

S is a teacher in the private sector and has 20 years of experience at the school. The school was going through a change management process. S made an application to the Fair Work Commission for an Order to Stop Bullying based on allegation which included:

• The principal, M, allocating a business manager to conduct S's annual review despite the fact that the business manager had not conducted any other teacher's review, had no educational experience and had recently had unpleasant exchanges with S.
• M entered a discussion between S and the pay clerk about S's long service leave request and, standing very close to S with clenched fists, said 'I have not signed off on it. You have to wait.' M was not actually dealing with the leave application.
• On S's return from long service leave, S was directed to complete an induction program for new employees and was appointed a mentor with less experience than she had. S was the only employee to have to do the induction on return from leave and the only employee who was not new to be allocated a mentor.

The impact on S's physical and mental health

As a result of the behaviours, S felt isolated, targeted and demeaned in the workplace. S was also insulted, embarrassed and humiliated by being allocated a mentor and having to do the induction training in spite of her 20 years' experience. S felt so distressed because of the personal behaviour of the principal towards her that S saw her doctor and was given time off work.

The treatment S was subjected to at work impacted on her health and safety and resulted in her suffering a psychological injury. The employer could have prevented this from occurring by:

• ensuring the appropriate person conducted the annual review
• training managers in how to interact professionally with employees
• providing appropriate training to employees based on their experience in the job

Bullying of one employee by multiple colleagues

K was a police officer and was successful in being promoted into a new team. K made a common law claim for damages alleging she suffered injuries as a result of her employer's negligence. The behaviours that led to K suffering a mental injury allegedly included:

• being given the worst desk normally reserved for temporary staff
• being told that her supervisor thought she had slept with the boss to get the job
• after announcing she was pregnant, the supervisor asked her if she had slept with the boss to get the job
• the supervisor calling HR in front of her and asking if she could be replaced because she was pregnant
• the supervisor told K that the only way he could get rid of her was if she voluntarily relinquished the job and asked if she was willing to do so
• being called 'the black widow' by the supervisor when she walked into the room.
• being socially ostracised by the team
• having difficulty getting time off to look after her child post maternity leave when other people had no trouble getting time off to play golf
• not being invited on a social club interstate trip
• being shouted at when she questioned being left out of the social club interstate trip

The impact on K's physical and mental health

K went from being a fit and healthy young woman to being unable to work and suffering from depression, high anxiety and panic attacks.

The treatment that K was subjected to at work impacted on her health and safety and resulted in her suffering a psychological injury. The employer could have prevented this from occurring by:

• ensuring that appropriate supervision was provided under Section 21(2)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004
• providing appropriate training to its managers on how to handle maternity leave arrangements and post-maternity leave return to work
• providing appropriate training to all employees about acceptable workplace behaviour

Employer duties

The Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (OHS Act) requires employers to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as reasonably practicable. If it is not reasonably practicable to eliminate risks, the employer must reduce risks, so far as reasonably practicable.

The best approach to deal with risks to health and safety associated with workplace bullying is to implement appropriate measures in the workplace.

In line with their duty to eliminate and reduce risks to health, including psychological health, employers have a responsibility to identify hazards and assess associated risks that may lead to workplace bullying. As an employer, you must control any associated risks, review and, if necessary, revise risk control measures.

Related pages

This information is from 'Workplace bullying: A guide for employers'. The complete guide is available in two formats.

Website version PDF guide

Related information

Worksafe victoria.

ITS PSYCHOLOGY

Learn All About Psychology

• Neuro Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Research Psychology
• Mental Disorder
• Personality Disorder
• Relationship
• Social Skills

19 Cases of Bullying among Real and Overwhelming Youth

Table of Contents

Last Updated on April 13, 2023 by Mike Robinson

We present 19 cases of real bullying and cyberbullying characterized by their fatal outcomes and the lack of training of education professionals.  The cases and stories of bullying in schools and outside them with cyberbullying have multiplied in recent years.

Bullying can cause severe mental distress. The cases of adolescents and minors who take their own lives due to the different types of bullying should be alarming to educational professionals. Schools must implement immediate and decisive actions to curtail this unacceptable behavior trend. 

1-Miriam, eight years old

Miriam is an eight-year-old girl who goes to elementary school. She loves animals, so she always has pictures of them in her books. She even has a backpack shaped like a puppy.

Her companions laugh and make fun of her, comparing her with the animals on the stickers on her backpack because she is overweight. Also, since she is “fat,” they take her money and snacks at recess.

Although she has told the teachers repeatedly, they have not done much to change the situation. To try to improve the situation, Miriam stopped eating and is in the hospital for anorexia.

2-Tania: Fourteen years old.

Tania, a 14-year-old teenager, has tried to commit suicide due to her high school classmates’ continuous threats, robberies, and aggressions. The situation has not changed despite filing 20 complaints against 19 of her classmates.

In January 2014, she was admitted to the hospital for 15 days due to an overdose of Valium pills. Despite her attempted suicide, the threats are still ongoing.

3-Diego: Eleven years old

It is a recent case of school bullying in Spain; Diego, an eleven-year-old boy, was a victim of this practice in a school in Madrid.

His mother remembers that her son told her he did not want to go to school, so his mood was always very sad; once, he lost his voice because of a blow he had suffered at school from his classmates.

The day he committed suicide, his mother went to pick him up at school, and he ran frantically to the car to get out safely. Later that evening, he killed himself.

4-Jokin Z: Fourteen years old

It was one of the first cases of bullying that came to light in Spain. After being bullied for months, he decided to commit suicide. The parents felt helpless. They tried for two years to prevent this tragedy and remove the suffering of their teenage son.

As a result of his suicide, eight students had charges brought against them. The parents were also arrested. However, only one individual was convicted. 

5-Jairo: Sixteen years old

Jairo is a 16-year-old boy from a town in Seville who faced severe bullying because of his physical disability. He has a prosthetic leg due to a wrong operation. His classmates continually make fun of him and his disability.

Not only did they trip him, but they also tried to take it off in the gymnastics class. On the other hand, in the social networks, there were photos of him manipulated with computer programs with bad words that made Jairo not want to go to school.

Due to the suffering caused by this type of behavior, Jairo asked to change schools and is currently at another institute.

6-Yaiza: Seven years old

At seven years old, Yaiza suffered bullying from her classmates. They insulted her continuously, to the point that Yaiza had difficulty convincing herself that what her classmates told her was false.  Not only did they insult her, but they also stole her breakfast and even once threw a table at her.

She was fortunate to have a teacher who was involved in the issue of bullying and helped make changes at the school. The teacher brought attention to bullying to better understand why these practices occur in schools.

7-Alan: Seventeen years old

This seventeen-year-old teenager was bullied by his classmates because he was a transsexual. He took his life on December 30, 2015, after taking pills mixed with alcohol.

It was not the first time he tried since he had been receiving therapy numerous times because he had suffered for years. As in other cases, Alan was no longer in school, but that was not enough.

8-Ryan: Fourteen years old

After years of psychological aggression, in 2003, Ryan, then fourteen years old, decided to commit suicide. He did so because he was supposedly gay. It all started because a friend of his published online that he was homosexual.

Because of this, he did not stop receiving jokes, ridicule, and humiliation from his classmates. This case helped to approve the Harassment Prevention Act in Vermont of the US States months after his death.

9-Arancha: Sixteen years old

This 16-year-old girl decided to throw herself from the sixth floor. The reason was the bullying she suffered from classmates in Madrid.

Arancha suffered from motor and intellectual disabilities, which was more than enough for her class to bully her. Although her parents reported this fact to the police, it was not enough to prevent the fatal outcome.

Minutes before launching herself from the building, she said goodbye to the people closest to her by sending them a message through WhatsApp, saying, “I was tired of living.”

10-Lolita: Fifteen years old

Lolita is currently under medical treatment due to the depression she suffers, which has paralyzed her face. This young woman from Maip, Chile, was bullied by four classmates at her school.

Her classmates mocked and humiliated her in class, which seriously affected her. According to the mother, the school knew about her daughter’s mistreatment and did nothing to prevent it.

11-Rebecca: Fifteen years

The case of Rebecca from the state of Florida is an example of cyberbullying. She decided to take her own life in 2013 due to the continuous threats and humiliations suffered by colleagues on social networks.

She and her mother had informed the teachers at school of this situation. Unfortunately, they did not work to stop the attacks on her. She posted on her profile days before her death, “I’m dead. “I cannot stand it anymore.”

12-Phoebe Prince: Fifteen years old

This 15-year-old Irish immigrant girl was harassed by nine teenagers who had criminal charges brought up in 2010. She was bullied physically and psychologically, and there was cyberbullying through cell phones and the internet.

Phoebe was humiliated and assaulted for three months in high school until she ended up hanging herself. The people who harassed her continued to do so even after her death.

13-Rehtaeh: Fifteen years old

This girl from Halifax, Nova Scotia, decided to hang herself in her bathroom after suffering cyber bullying. Her schoolmates and strangers took part in the bullying. Rehtaeh got drunk at a party, where, apart from raping her, they photographed her while it happened.

This photo began circulating everywhere, so even kids she did not know asked her to sleep with them on social networks. Her classmates also insulted her and made fun of her.

14-Oscar: Thirteen years old

This minor, who is 13 years old and in the first year of secondary school, decided to ingest liquid drain cleaner for pipes for the sole purpose of not going to school. Oscar was harassed not only by his classmates but also by one of his teachers.

Oscar could not contain the urge to go to the bathroom due to a urinary problem. His teacher never let him go, so he once urinated on himself.  From that moment on, he had to deal with the treatment he received from his teacher and his classmates, who made fun of him and insulted him repeatedly.

15-Monica: Sixteen years old

Mónica lived in Ciudad Real (Spain) and was 16 years old when she decided to commit suicide because of the treatment she received at school from her classmates. They would insult her on the bus, threaten her, and publish photos and nasty comments on social networks.

She decided to commit suicide to end all the hell that her classmates made her go through. Even though her father, one day before he took his own life, complained to the head of studies about what was happening to his daughter.

16-María: Eleven years old

This girl from Madrid (Spain) suffered harassment from her classmates at a religious school. Her classmates not only made fun of her but even physically mistreated her.

Teachers disputed these claims and did not defend her or take measures to stop them from happening. Because of this, she tried to overdose on pills without success.

17-Amanda: Fifteen years old

Amanda, a Canadian-born minor, committed suicide after posting a video on social media reporting that she was suffering bullying.

It all started when he sent a topless photo of herself to a stranger on the webcam; from that moment, insults and harassment began on the internet.

This bullying lasted three years. Amanda even changed schools to rebuild her life, but it did not help. The abuse caused anxiety and acute depression that led her to consume drugs.

18-Zaira: Fifteen years old

Here is another victim of bullying from classmates. In the case of Zaira, it all started when they recorded her with a cell phone while she was in the bathroom.  These girls spread the video among all the school’s classmates and others outside her school. 

Because of these recordings, Zaira had to take the continuous teasing of her classmates and even physical abuse. Thanks to a lower-class classmate, she faced bullying, and this story had a happy ending.

19-Marco: Eleven years

This child had spent five years enduring the harassment he suffered from his classmates. They made fun of him because he was supposedly overweight, although, in reality, he was not.

They humiliated him on many occasions, and once, they even took off his clothes in gym class.  A teacher knew what was happening to him and did not take action. Marco is currently in another school after telling him everything that happened to his parents.

Conclusions About Bullying

These 19 cases are only 19 of many in our schools. These examples show the flaws that exist in education systems worldwide. The education system professionals are not doing enough to address these abuses.

Despite all we know about bullying, there still needs to be more information about its prevention and action. The schools are not prepared to face this type of situation, leading them to ignore this behavior in their students and leave the families alone with this problem.

Also Read:  11 Human Body Games for Children

To reduce the number of suicides due to school bullying in children, we must educate everyone involved. By providing adequate training, people will know what guidelines to follow in these situations to prevent adolescent suicide.

Related Post

10 activities for children with down syndrome.

The 6 Most Common Bone Marrow Diseases

What is Solomon Syndrome? 7 Guidelines to Combat It

The Role of Dopamine in Love

Child Aggression: Symptoms, Causes and Treatments

What is Vicarious Learning?

Long Words Phobia (Hipopotomonstrosesquipedaliofobia)

21 Activities for Children with ADHD

Cognitive Stimulation: 10 Exercises for Adults and Children

Aggressive Communication: Features and Examples

The 10 Most Common Neurological Symptoms

Mental Hygiene: What it is and 10 tips to have it

The 4 Major Stress Hormones

Mythomania Symptoms, Causes and Treatment

• The Ultimate Guide to Overcoming Driving OCD

• Why Happiness Is a Choice: How to Live a Fulfilling Life

• A Guide on How to Rebuild Your Life After Trauma

• Understanding Trauma Bonding and Its Effects

Its Psychology

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions
• About Its Psychology

Recent Posts

• The Battle of Resistance vs Resilience: How to Build Mental Toughness

• (02) 8007 7474

CASE STUDIES IN BULLYING & HARASSMENT LAW

Training Courses

The legal duty to protect workers.

In accordance with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, businesses are under a legal duty of care to protect their employees’ health and safety at work, including an obligation to protect the psychological health of their staff.

Exemplified by the below examples, there have been numerous cases in which the courts have found against employers and awarded compensation to employees for the psychological impact of workplace bullying and harassment, due to the employer’s negligence in failing to meet this duty of care.

These cases highlight the responsibility on employers to  address bullying and harassment  complaints seriously and appropriately, and to ensure that employee wellbeing is not put at risk by the workplace environment. They also emphasise the need for businesses to be both pro-active and re-active in addressing matters of workplace bullying.

CASE STUDY 1 M V WINSLOW CONSTRUCTORS (VIC) PTY LTS [2015] VSC 728 .

Summary:  A female labourer at a construction company in Melbourne suffered psychiatric injuries following abuse, bullying and sexual harassment. She sued her employer for negligence in failing to provide a safe working environment, and was awarded $1.36 million.

The labourer endured sexually explicit remarks and threatening comments like “I will take you into the container and f*** you” and “anything that bleeds once a month should be shot”. A co-worker once grabbed her by the hips and simulated a sex act on her. She was reluctant to complain to her foreman, as he was also responsible for some offensive remarks, having called her “useless”, a “spastic” and a “bimbo”.

She reported a rape threat to the person responsible for HR, who invited her to “come to my place… we will have a drink and talk about it”. She then received an anonymous call from a male calling her “a c***”. She did not return to work after this.

The labourer suffered psychiatric injuries including depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.  The Supreme Court of Victoria found the employer to be negligent in allowing the woman to be subjected to extensive bullying and harassment.

CASE STUDY 2 KEEGAN V SUSSAN CORPORATION (AUST.) PTY LTD [2014] QSC 64 .

Summary:  A Queensland employee lodged a negligence claim against her employer after she experienced bullying and harassment by her store manager resulting in psychiatric injury. She was awarded $237,770 in damages.

After returning from maternity leave, the employee endured exclusion from business discussions, unwarranted criticism of past and present performance, and was repeatedly spoken to in an ‘aggressive and nasty’ tone by her store manager.

The employee informed the State Business Manager that she was being bullied, and was told to “put some lippy on” and “go home to your bub”. The employee made a further bullying complaint several days later and was told to “work it out herself”. She was subsequently diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder and filed a negligence claim.

The Queensland Supreme Court held that the employer did not comply with its own Bullying and Harassment Policy, and failed to treat the complaint with appropriate seriousness and confidentiality. The Court concluded that psychiatric injury would have occurred as a result of the employer’s failure to handle the complaint in accordance with the policy, and as such, the employer had breached its duty of care.

CASE STUDY 3 BAILEY V PEAKHURST BOWLING & RECREATION CLUB LTD [2009] NSWDC 284 (NSW DISTRICT COURT, LEVY SC DCJ, 3 NOVEMBER 2009).

Summary:  An employee received $507,550 in compensation following persistent harassment, intimidation and bullying by her supervisor.

Over a two-year period, the employee endured vulgar language, threats that she would lose her job, pressure to break liquor licensing rules, pressure to resign her union membership, changes in her work classification such that she lost pay and seniority, and underpayment of wages.

The treatment of this employee by her supervisor damaged her mental health and she was referred to a psychologist. She was diagnosed with Generalised Anxiety Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. Her prognosis suggested it was unlikely that she would return to paid employment.

The District Court of New South Wales concluded that the employer had breached its duty of care to provide a safe work place, and awarded damaged.

CASE STUDY 4 STATE OF NSW V MANNALL (OCTOBER 25 2005) NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL.

Summary:  An employee received compensation for psychiatric injury resulting from persistent bullying following her promotion to a management position. She was awarded $339,722 in damages.

The employee did not receive any management training prior to her promotion, and other employees responded with bitterness and resentment about the removal of the previous team leader. The employee endured increasingly hostile behaviour, including spreading rumours, disobeying requests, making offensive and vindictive comments, and a failure to provide assistance during busy periods.

The team members eventually convened a meeting (to which the employee was not invited), and drafted a document listing complaints against the new team leader, which was given to her manager. The manager accepted the document and refused to intervene when requested to do so by the employee. The employee also sought assistance from other managers who failed to intervene.

The employee eventually left the position due to the development of psychiatric conditions, including anxiety and depression.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found the employer to be negligent in its duty of care to create a safe working environment; the managers involved had the capacity to take preventative action, but failed to do so.

Related Articles

• Bullying & Harassment Awareness Training
• Bullying & Harassment Defined
• Reasonable Management Action

Contact us today to discuss your Corporate Workshop needs.

“What fantastic training provided on mental health in the workplace and the importance of educating and empowering our staff on this topic. The team thoroughly enjoyed the workshop which was engaging and lead by the fantastic Katherine Wagner. Thank you Associated EAP.”

Philip Divilly

Managing Director, Quay Appointments

Let us tailor an Employee Support package for your business

[email protected]

Call us (02) 8007 7474

Employee Assistance Programs for organisations big and small.

Privacy Policy

Corporate Training

© 2021 Associated Employee Assistance Program 411/185 Elizabeth Street, Sydney NSW 2000 (02) 8007 7474