Sandra Graham, PhD, UCLA

Children’s social lives — whether or not they have friends, whether they are accepted or rejected by their peers, whether they are victims or perpetrators of aggression — and their academic lives go hand in hand. This means that we cannot fully understand academic achievement without knowing about the social environment of children in school. For example, children who have few friends, who are actively rejected by the peer group, or who are victims of bullying are unlikely to have the cognitive and emotional resources to be able to do well in school (Juvonen & Graham, 2001).

Bullying by peers can have long-term effects on students’ academic achievement. Commonly labeled as peer victimization or peer harassment, school bullying is defined as repeated physical, verbal or psychological abuse of victims by perpetrators who intend to cause them harm (Olweus, 1993). The critical features that distinguish bullying from simple conflict between peers are: intentions to cause harm, repeated incidences of harm, and an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim. Hitting, kicking, shoving, name-calling, spreading of rumors, exclusion and intimidating gestures (e.g., eye rolling) by powerful peers are all examples of behaviors that constitute abuse that is physical, verbal or psychological in nature.

Note that this definition of school bullying does not include more lethal sorts of peer-directed hostilities. Although some widely-publicized school shootings may have been precipitated by a history of peer abuse, they remain rare events (National School Safety Center, 2006). The focus of this module is on more typical and widespread types of bullying that affect the lives of many children and that have been labeled as a public health concern by the American Medical Association. It is estimated that 40-80 percent of school-age children experience bullying at some point during their school careers and 10-15 percent may be either chronic victims or bullies themselves (Nansel et al., 2001) Moreover, survey data indicate that more than 60 percent of elementary and secondary school students rate bullying as a major problem affecting their lives and that they worry most about being harassed at school rather than when they are going to and from school (Kaiser Family Foundation and Children Now, 2001). In light of such statistics and growing public concern, it is important that teachers have a better understanding of bullying and what they can do to both prevent it and intervene when it occurs.

Peer harassment

How widespread?

According to national surveys...

  • 70 percent of middle and high school students have experienced bullying at some point

  • 20-40 percent report having bullied or been part of bullying during the school year 

  • 27 percent report being harassed for not conforming to sexually stereotypical behavior 

  • 5-15 percent of youth are chronic victims 

  • 7-12 percent are chronic bullies

Peer harassment: How serious?
  • 8-15 year olds rank bullying as more of a problem in their lives than violence 

  • 5th-12th graders are more concerned about emotional maltreatment and social cruelty from peers than anything else 

  • Some recent school shootings have been traced back to a history of peer abuse 

  • Peer harassment is designated as a Public Health Concern by The American Medical Association

Do's and don’ts


  1. Respond to any bullying incident that you witness. Most bullying takes place in “unowned spaces” like hallways, playgrounds and restrooms where adult supervision is minimal (Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999). It is important for teachers to be more visible in these places and to respond to all bullying incidents that they witness. A response by a teacher communicates to bullies that their actions are not acceptable and it helps victims feel less powerless about their predicament. The frequent presence of teachers in all areas of the school helps give students a feeling of safety. Teachers should also keep an eye on students who are physically smaller than their peers, or who behave or look different from others, since these variables often serve as risk factors for bullying. 

  2. Use witnessed bullying incidents as “teachable moments.” Teachable moments are defined as situations that open the door for conversations with students about difficult topics.  These may include: why many young people play bystander roles and/or are unwilling to come to the aid of victims, how social ostracism can be a particularly painful form of peer abuse, and why bullies are sometimes popular among their peers. An effective way to send the message that bullying will not be tolerated is to engage students in these difficult dialogues rather than to quickly and harshly punish the perpetrator. 

  3. Seek outside help when needed. Most teachers do not have the training to deal with students who have serious problems as either perpetrators or victims of bullying. Hence, they should request professional assistance when it is needed either from the principal, a school counselor or the school psychologist. Although bullying in American schools affects the lives of many youth, about 10 percent of students are chronic bullies or victims and they may be at risk for long-term adjustment difficulties (Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003; Nansel et al., 2001). 

  4. Set an example with your own behavior. Unfortunately, peer bullying also occurs among educators and between educators and students (e.g., Brendgen, Wanner, & Vitaro, 2006). It is critically important that adults in school settings refrain from targeting each other and from targeting students.


  1. Never ignore a student who reports being victimized by peers. Victims of peer bullying are often reluctant to tell their teachers about their experiences because they fear retaliation. Others who avoid disclosure believe that their teachers do not care or are unwilling to come to their aid. Because so many victims of school bullying “suffer in silence” it is important that teachers follow up on every reported incident.

  2. Do not rely too heavily on a zero-tolerance approach to disciplining bullies. Zero tolerance approaches that advocate suspension or expulsion of school bullies are sometimes preferred because they presumably send a message to the student body that bullying will not be tolerated. However, research suggests that these policies do not always work as intended and can sometimes backfire (APA Task Force on Zero Tolerance, 2008). Before deciding on a discipline strategy, teachers need to give careful thought to the scope of the problem, where change should be targeted, who will be affected by those changes, the fairness of the strategy, and the kinds of messages that are being communicated to students. 

  3. Do not adopt a one-size fits all model for intervening in school bullying. Because bullying can take many forms (e.g., psychological versus physical), it may be temporary or chronic.  Because bullies and their victims have different challenges, teachers need to tailor their intervention approaches to the specific needs of each child. 

  4. Do not let the peer group off the hook. Bullying involves more than perpetrators and victims. Students are often witnesses to bullying incidents and may take on roles of bystanders or reinforcers who encourage bullies (Salimalvalli, 2001). Peers need to learn that there is no such thing as an innocent bystander, and how their group behavior can indirectly encourage bullies.

Explanation and evidence

School bullying is associated with a host of adjustment difficulties (see Juvonen & Graham, 2001; Sanders & Phye, 2004). Students who are chronic victims of bullying are often the same children who are rejected by their peers; have low self-esteem; and feel depressed, anxious, and lonely. Part of this psychological distress may revolve around how victims think about the reasons for their plight. For example, repeated encounters with peer hostility or even a single isolated, yet especially painful experience, might lead that victim to ask, “Why me?”.  In the absence of contrary evidence, such an individual might come to blame their predicament on their own shortcomings. Victims often conclude, for example that “I’m someone who deserves to be picked on” (Graham Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Graham & Juvonen, 1998). It is as if the victim is saying to himself or herself: “It’s something about me; things will always be that way, and there is nothing I can do to change it”). Self-blame can lead to many negative psychological outcomes because individuals who make this attribution tend to feel both helpless and hopeless.

In addition to psychological challenges, some victimized children also have real physical symptoms that lead to frequent visits to the school nurse and absenteeism (Nishina, Juvonen, & Witkow, 2005). It is not difficult to imagine a chronic victim of bullying who becomes so anxious about going to school that she or he tries to avoid it at all costs. Other research suggests that negative attitudes toward school and poor school performance are both associated with being the target of bullying. This association begins as early as kindergarten and extends into the adolescent years (e.g., Kochenderfer & Ladd, 1996; Schwartz, Gorman, Nakamoto, & Toblin, 2005).

Myths and facts about bullying

Many beliefs about school bullying are not supported by current research. Among the most common myths that even some teachers have been known to endorse are the following:

Myth #1: Bullies are rejected by their peers and have no friends

Many people believe that everybody dislikes the class bully. But in truth, research shows that many bullies have high status in the classroom and lots of friends (e.g., Cairns & Cairns, 1994; Rodkin, Farmer, Pearl, & Van Acker, 2000). Particularly during the middle school years, some bullies are actually popular among classmates who perceive them as “cool” (Juvonen et al., 2003).  Many classmates admire their toughness and may even try to imitate them.

Myth #2: Bullies have low self-esteem

Just as it has been incorrectly assumed that bullies are rejected by peers and have no friends, there is a general belief that such youths have low self-esteem. That myth has its roots in the widely accepted view that people who bully others must act that way because they think poorly of themselves. Some readers may remember the self-esteem movement of the 1980s when many people argued that raising self-esteem was the key to improving the outcomes of children with academic and social problems (Baumeister, 1996). But, there is little evidence that bullies suffer from low self-esteem. (Baumeister, Smart & Boden, 1996). To the contrary, many studies report that bullies perceive themselves in a positive light, perhaps sometimes displaying inflated self-views (Zariski & Coie, 1996). Therefore, just focusing on self-esteem enhancement will probably not improve the outcomes of youths who pick on others.

Myth #3: Being a victim builds character

Another misconception is that bullying is a normal part of the childhood and adolescence experience, and that surviving peer harassment builds character. In contrast to this view, research findings clearly show that being bullied increases the vulnerabilities of bullied children. For example, we know that children who are passive and socially withdrawn are at a heightened risk of getting bullied and these children become even more withdrawn after incidents of harassment (Schwartz, Dodge & Coie, 1993).

Myth #4: Many childhood victims of harassment become violent as teens

The portrayal of bullying victims lashing out in anger at their tormentors in school shooting incidents has been reinforced by the media over the past few years. However, most victims of bullying are more likely to suffer in silence than to retaliate. As indicated above, many victims experience psychological adjustment problems like depression and low self-esteem that encourage them to turn their anger inward rather than outward.

Myth #5: Bullying involves only perpetrators and victims

Many parents, teachers and students view bullying as a problem that is limited to bullies and victims. Yet, bullying involves more than the bully-victim dyad (Salmivalli, 2001). Studies based on playground observations found that in 75 percent of bullying incidents, at least four other peers were present as either witnesses, bystanders, assistants to bullies, reinforcers or defenders of victims (O’Connel, Pepler, & Craig, 1999). Assistants to bullies take part in ridiculing or intimidating a schoolmate. Reinforcers, in turn, encourage the bully by showing signs of approval (e.g., smiling when someone is bullied). In contrast to the pro-bully participants, those who defend victims are rare. One observation study found that in more than 50 percent of observed incidents of bullying, peers reinforced bullies by passively watching. In only about 25 percent of the incidents did witnesses support the victim by directly intervening, distracting or discouraging the bully (O’Connel et al., 1999).

Understanding facts versus myths about bullies and victims is important for intervention. The problems of victims and bullies are not the same. (Profiles of Early Adolescents). Victims of harassment need interventions that help them develop more positive self-views and learn not to blame themselves for their experiences with harassment (Graham et al., 2006). Bullies need to acquire strategies that help them control their anger and their tendency to blame other people for their problems. And peers need to learn that bullying is a whole school problem for which everyone is responsible.

What can be done about bullying and its negative effects?

There are many intervention strategies to combat and deal with bullying in schools. Some interventions come in the form of whole school programs, others focus on classroom curricula, and still others target at-risk individuals (typically bullies). Certain programs focus on skill building (e.g., fostering pro-social skills, conflict-mediation strategies), whereas others rely on the punishment of undesirable behavior (e.g., zero-tolerance policies). Data on program effectiveness are limited at this time; especially limited are evaluation studies that compare different approaches (Hyman, Kay, Yabori, Weber, Mahon, & Cohen, 2006; Samples, 2004; Smith, Pepler, & Rigby, 2004). (Evidence-based Bullying Interventions)

Profiles of early adolescents

Differences between victims, bullies and bully-victims

What is it like to be a victim of peer harassment during early adolescence? What is it like to be a bully? Are there some youths who have characteristics of both victims and bullies? Researchers have been studying the similarities and differences between middle school students who have reputations as victims, bullies or both bullies and victims (Graham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Juvonen, Graham, & Schuster, 2003). Table 1 shows the differences found among victims, bullies, bully-victims and a well-adjusted group on psychological, social and academic adjustment.

Notice in the first column that early adolescents with reputations as victims share many psychological and social adjustment problems. Compared to the normative group, victims are more depressed, anxious, and lonely, and they report low self-esteem. Research shows that victims have a tendency to blame themselves for their experiences with harassment; they are more likely to believe that “it is something about me, things will always be that way, and there is nothing I can do to change it.” Self-blame and its accompanying negative demeanor make it more difficult for victims to cope with challenging social experiences (Graham & Juvonen, 1998). As might be expected in light of their other self-perceived vulnerabilities, victims perceive their schools as unsafe. Yet, victims do not perceive the school rules as unfair in the sense that they do not feel mistreated by teachers or administrators.

What about bullies? Compared to victims and the well-adjusted “normal” group, bullies appear to have healthy mental lives. They are no more depressed, anxious, or lonely than the well-adjusted group and they have high self-esteem. These findings are at odds with the widely held belief in our society that people who aggress against others must act that way because they think poorly of themselves. But in fact, there is very little indication in the research literature that aggressive youths suffer from low self-esteem (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996). Also, bullies are least likely to blame themselves for any conflicts they have with their peers. That finding is consistent with the large body of literature in developmental psychology that reports it is common for aggressive youths to blame the hostile intentions of others for their difficulties with peers rather than blame their own characteristics or behaviors (see Coie & Dodge, 1998). And consistent with this low self-blame, bullies are more likely to believe that the school environment is safe, but teachers and administrators treat them unfairly.

Another noteworthy finding reported in Table 1 is that bullies, compared to victims, enjoy high social status. This may help to explain their positive self-views. Bullies are often perceived as especially “cool,” where coolness captures both popularity and possession of traits that are admired by early adolescents. As early adolescents exercise their need for autonomy and independence, it seems that bullies enjoy popularity as their better-adjusted peers attempt to imitate their anti-social tendencies.

In the third column you will see the profiles for youths with reputations as both victims and bullies. Are they more similar to victims, to bullies, or to a distinct subgroup with its own unique characteristics?

In comparing columns 1 and 3, it seems that bully-victims are somewhat unique and they exhibit the worst characteristics of both categories. They report psychological maladjustment as high as that of victims, yet they do not enjoy any of the social benefits of bullies because their peers overwhelmingly reject them. In some cases, bully-victims turn inward and feel bad about themselves; in other cases, they turn outward and aggress against perpetrators. But with few friends, bully-victims have little social support to help them ward off potential retaliation. Like victims, bully-victims feel unsafe at school; but like bullies, they judge the school rules as unfair.
This suggests that bully-victims suffer from multiple risks. They also do more poorly in school than any of the other groups.

Considering all of the adjustment outcomes examined here, bully-victims may be the most troubled and vulnerable of the behavioral subgroups (Unnever, 2005).

Targeted intervention programs

Unlike school-wide approaches that address the needs of everyone, most interventions target the known dysfunctional thoughts and behaviors of those children who aggress against others. One very well documented research finding is that bullies have a tendency to believe that peers are intentionally causing them harm, particularly in ambiguous situations (Coie & Dodge, 1998; also see Castro et al., 2002 for a recent meta-analysis). This tendency has been called hostile attributional bias. Imagine, for example, that you are standing in line and unexpectedly receive a push from the person behind you. Although it may be unclear whether the person intended the push or not, bullies are more likely to infer that the push was instigated "on purpose" (i.e., the person is responsible) and to respond with anger and aggression. Having a low threshold for assigning blame in peer contexts can elicit anger and retaliation from others, including teachers, which can then lead to escalating cycles of hostility and mistrust.

Hostile attributional bias may be only one part of a larger set of deficits that interferes with the adaptive social information processing. For example, Crick and Dodge (1994) proposed a five-step social cognitive model that has become very influential in the bullying intervention literature. In that model, the information processing difficulties of bullies begin when they inaccurately interpret social cues associated with interpersonal dilemmas (e.g., the hypothetical push while waiting in line) and continues as they formulate goals accessed from a repertoire of possible behavioral responses (e.g., should I retaliate or just ignore it?), and finally choose a response.

One of the best-known bullying interventions that includes these kinds of social information processing skills is Fast Track (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (CPPRG), 2002a, 2002b). Implemented at four sites (Durham, NC, Nashville, TN, Seattle, WA, and a rural community in central Pennsylvania), Fast Track identified a sample of 890 high-risk kindergarten children based on parent and teacher reports of conduct problems at home and at school. These children were then randomly assigned to either an intervention group or to a no-treatment control group. Those in the intervention group participated in a yearlong curriculum with weekly meetings that included training in social information processing, social problem solving, emotional understanding, communication and self-control. When it was needed, the social-cognitive component was accompanied by individualized academic tutoring, and there was also a parent-training component. Intervention activities continued to grade 10, but with heavier concentration in the first two years of elementary school and during the transition to middle school. Other examples of targeted approaches for elementary school students are Brainpower (Hudley & Graham, 1993) and Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) (Greenberg, Kushche, & Mihalic, 1998).

School-wide bullying prevention and targeted interventions, although complementary, represent different schools of thought and each has advantages and disadvantages. School-wide programs aim to build resiliency in all children and to create a more positive school climate, whereas targeted approaches focus on the underlying causes of bullying behavior in the individual bully. Fidelity and sustainability–two important components of good interventions–are likely to be differentially achieved in the whole-school versus targeted approaches. Fidelity, or the consistency with which all of the components of the intervention are implemented, is easier to both monitor and achieve in targeted approaches because there are fewer adults (trainers) and children to track. With school-wide programs, there are multiple activities at multiple levels involving multiple stakeholders and it is more difficult to monitor treatment fidelity. On the other hand, sustainability may be easier to achieve in the school-wide programs. Systemic changes in peer, classroom, school and community are needed to build the foundation for long-term prevention of bullying. Targeted interventions, typically imported from the outside and implemented by researchers or school staff working with those researchers, usually are too short-lived to achieve that kind of support base.

Are there gender differences in the experience of bullying?

The answer to this question emerges in discussions of different types of peer victimization– that is, physical, verbal, and psychological. Psychological or relational victimization, usually involves social ostracism or attempts to damage the reputation of the victim. Some research suggests that girls are more likely to engage in this relational type of bullying (e.g., Crick et al., 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck, Geiger, & Crick, 2005). Because a whole popular culture has emerged around relationally aggressive girls (so-called, queen bees, alpha girls) and their victims, it is important to put these gender findings in proper perspective. First, in some studies, physical, verbal and relational victimization tend to be correlated, suggesting that the victim of relational bullying is also the victim of physical and verbal bullying (e.g., Bellmore & Cillessen, 2006; Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2002). Second, if relational bullying is more prevalent in girls than boys (and the results are mixed), then this gender difference is most likely confined to middle childhood and early adolescence (see review in Archer & Coyne, 2005). By middle adolescence, relational bullying becomes the norm for both genders as it becomes less socially accepted for individuals to physically attack peers. In surveys of high school students, for example, both boys and girls report that they are more likely to engage in emotionally abusive behavior, such as ridicule and ostracism, than physically abusive behavior (Harris, 2004).

Are there ethnic differences in the experience of bullying?

As American public schools become more ethnically diverse, one can ask whether some ethnic groups are more vulnerable to peer bullying than others. There is no persuasive research evidence that ethnicity in and of itself is a risk factor for victimization. A more critical variable is whether one’s ethnic group is the numerical majority or minority in a particular school. Because bullying occurs when there is an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, being a member of the minority group can lead to more victimization because one’s group is less powerful in the numerical sense (e.g., Graham & Juvonen, 2002). It could be that the best situation is an ethnically diverse context where no one group holds the numerical balance of power (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2006). Shared power may reduce incidents of bullying that, in turn, affect perceptions of vulnerability. Thus, it is not so much ethnicity per se as it is the ethnic composition of classrooms and schools that shape the experience of victimization.

Is it true that “Once a victim, always a victim”?

Research is inconclusive on this question. Some findings suggest that victim status is moderately stable across a one-year school period for elementary students (Boulton & Smith, 1994). With kindergartners, however, studies show considerable turnover in status from fall to spring (Korchenderfer & Ladd, 1996). In research with early adolescents, only about a third of students who had reputations as victims in the fall of sixth grade maintained that reputation at the end of the school year (Juvonen, Nishina, & Graham, 2000). Although certain personality characteristics (e.g., the tendency to be shy or withdrawn) place children at higher risk for being bullied, there are also a host of changing situational factors (e.g., being a new student in school, being a late maturer) that affect the likelihood of a child being bullied or continuing to be bullied. These situational factors explain why there are more temporary than chronic victims of bullying.

Are some students both bullies and victims?

A growing body of research literature has described the psychological profile of bully-victims — that is, students who are both perpetrators and targets of peer harassment. These students appear to be overwhelmingly rejected by their peers, while not enjoying any of the social benefits that sometimes accrue to aggressive youth (e.g., Graham, Bellmore, & Mize, 2006; Schwartz, Proctor, & Chien, 2001). With multiple behavioral and social risks, bully-victims are considered to be more troubled and vulnerable than either bullies or victims (Nansel et al, 2001; Unnever, 2005). 

What is the main reason that students get picked on by their peers?

Although there are many causes of bullying, one meaningful factor that consistently predicts victimization is being different from the larger peer group. Thus, having a physical or mental handicap or being highly gifted in a regular school setting, being a member of an ethnic or linguistic minority group, suffering from obesity, or being gay or lesbian are all risk factors for bullying because individuals who have these characteristics are often perceived to deviate from the normative standards of the larger peer group. Students also tend to favor the in-group (those who are similar to them) and to minimize the outgroup (those who are different). One antidote to this tendency is to teach tolerance for differences and to encourage the development of multiple social norms.

With so many bully-reduction interventions on the market, how can teachers know which one to choose?

A primary consideration is how the problem of bullying is defined. If the intervener believes that bullying is the collective responsibility of everyone in the school community, then a school-wide approach is called for. However, if one’s primary focus is on the needs of bullies and/or victims, then a more targeted program is likely to be appropriate. A second consideration should be the sustainability of the intervention among staff who may already be overwhelmed with responsibilities. In all cases, interventions with independent evaluation data supporting their effectiveness should be considered. Finally, children undergo major cognitive, emotional, social and biological changes from pre-K through high school, and intervention activities must be sensitive to different needs of various age groups.  With multi-ethnic student populations, program activities should reflect the life experiences and cultural heritages of the participants.

For whom does bullying intervention work?
Developmental differences

Bullying has been documented in children as young as preschool, but tested interventions for very young children are rare (Alsaker & Valkanover, 2001). Research suggests that physical bullying increases throughout childhood and early adolescence, and then begins to level off by middle school (e.g., Nansel et al., 2001). By middle adolescence it becomes less acceptable to engage in physical bullying and more acceptable to employ covert psychological tactics such as social ostracism and spreading rumors (Archer & Coyne, 2005). Most intervention strategies, both school-wide and targeted, have been developed for use with elementary age children and the types of bullying most prevalent during those years.

Puberty and the onset of romantic relationships during early and middle adolescence bring new forms of bullying, including cross-gender sexual harassment (Pepler, Connolly, & Henderson, 2001), and harassment of gay and lesbian youths (Savin-Williams, 2004). Because early adolescence is a developmental period of heightened concern about finding one’s niche, “fitting in,” and peer approval, middle school students who are targets of bullying might be particularly vulnerable to adjustment difficulties (e.g., Graham & Juvonen, 1998; Pelligrini, 2004).

Contextual factors

School contextual factors, (school and class size, teacher-student ratio, location and distance from home, racial/ethnic composition and organizational structure) change from childhood to adolescence, but very little is known about the effects of these changes on bullying or on its prevention. For example, one might hypothesize that bullying will be more extensive in larger schools where there are more “unowned spaces” with minimal adult supervision; or that students are more likely to be victimized going to and from school when they travel longer distances. It would also be important to know whether small learning communities (e.g., schools within schools) decrease the amount and seriousness of bullying; and whether academic tracking — which limits the mixing of students — affects bullying behavior during non-tracked classes. Contextual variables that increase students’ senses of belonging are presumed to result in a more positive school climate, which includes less bullying (Payne & Gottfredson, 2004). But, we do not have enough research about the psychological mechanisms that may or may not explain contextual school effects.

Where can teachers get more information?
Additional resources

U.S. Department of Education Safe Schools/Healthy Students (SS/HS) Initiative
A federal grant-awarding program that allows school districts to apply for funds to support programs that promote a safe school environment.

UCLA Center for Mental Health in Schools/School Mental Health Project
This website provides access to a clearinghouse of resources for enhancing mental health in schools. Resources include: consumer information outlets, national organizations with missions that focus on mental health in schools, relevant government agencies, listservs, electronic journals and newsletters. 

For further reading

Hyman, I., Kay, B., Tabori, A., Weber, M., Mahon, M., & Cohen, I. (2006). Bullying: Theory, research and interventions. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 855-884). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

This chapter is a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the topic of bullying in schools, with a particularly relevant section on interventions that address school bullying.


Alsaker, F. D. & Valkanover, S.  (2001).  Early diagnosis and prevention of victimization in kindergarten. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 175 – 195). New York: Guilford Press.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.

Archer, J., & Coyne, S.  (2005).  An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212-230.

Astor, R., Meyer, H., & Behre, W.  (1999).  Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 3-42.

Baumeister, R.  (1996).  Should schools try to boost self-esteem? Beware the dark side. American Educator, 20, 14-19.

Baumeister, R., Smart, L., & Boden, J.  (1996).  Relations of threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5-33.

Bellmore, A., & Cillessen, A.  (2006).  Reciprocal influences of victimization, perceived social preference, and self-concept in adolescence. Self and Identity, 5, 209-229.

Boulton, M., & Smith, P.  (1994).  Bully/victim problems in middle school children: Stability, self-perceived competence, peer perceptions, and peer acceptance. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12, 315-329.

Brendgen, M., Wanner, B., & Vitaro, F.  (2006).  Verbal abuse by the teacher and child adjustment from kindergarten through grade 6. Pediatrics, 117, 1585-1598.

Cairns, R., & Cairns, B.  (1994).  Lifelines and risk: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Castro, B., Veerman, J., Koops, W., Bosch, J., & Monshouwer, H.  (2002).  Hostile attribution of intent and aggressive behavior: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 73, 916-934.

Coie, J., & Dodge, K.  (1998).  Aggression and antisocial behavior. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 779-862). New York: John Wiley.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.  (2002a).  The implementation of the Fast Track Program: An example of a large scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 1-17.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.  (2002b).  Evaluation of the first three years of the Fast Track Prevention trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 19-35.

Craig, W., & Pepler, D.  (1997).  Observations of bullying and victimization in the schoolyard. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2, 41–60.

Crick, N., & Dodge, K.  (1994).  A review and reformulation of social information mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74-101.

Crick, N. R., Nelson, D. A., Morales, J. R., Cullerton-Sen, C., Casas, J. F., & Hickman, S. E.  (2001).  Relational victimization in childhood and adolescence: I hurt you through the grapevine. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 196-214). New York: Guilford Press.

Graham, S., & Juvonen, J.  (1998).  Self-blame and peer victimization in middle school: An attributional analysis.  Developmental Psychology, 34, 587-599.

Graham, S. & Juvonen, J.  (2002).  Ethnicity, peer harassment, and adjustment in middle school: An exploratory study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 22, 173-199.

Graham, S., & Bellmore, A., & Mize, J.  (2006).  Aggression, victimization, and their co-occurrence in middle school. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 363-378.

Greenberg, M., Kushche, C., & Mihalic, S.  (1998).  Promoting alternative thinking strategies (PATHS). Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Book Ten. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Harris, S.  (2004).  Bullying at school among older adolescents. Prevention Researcher, 11, 12-14.

Hudley, C., & Graham, S.  (1993).  An atrributional intervention to reduce peer-directed aggression among African American boys. Child Development, 64, 124-138.

Hyman, I., Kay, B., Tabori, A., Weber, M., Mahon, M., & Cohen, I.  (2006).  Bullying: Theory, research, and interventions. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 855-884). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S.  (2000).  Peer harassment, psychological adjustment, and school functioning in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 349-359.

Juvonen, J., & Graham, S. (Eds.).  (2001). Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized. New York: Guilford Press. 

Juvonen, J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M.  (2003).  Bullying among young adolescents: The strong, the weak, and the troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231-1237.

Juvonen, J., Nishina, A., & Graham, S.  (2006).  Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17, 393-400.

Kaiser Family Foundation and Children Now.  (2001).  Talking with kids about tough issues: A national survey of parents and kids.

Kochenderfer, B., & Ladd, G.  (1996).  Peer victimization: Causes or consequences of school maladjustment? Child Development, 67, 1305-1317.

Kochenderfer-Ladd, B., & Waldrop, J.  (2001).  Chronicity and instability of children’s peer victimization experiences as predictors of loneliness and social satisfaction trajectories. Child Development, 72, 134-151.

Ladd, G. W., & Kochenderfer-Ladd, B.  (2002).  Identifying victims of peer aggression from early to middle childhood: Analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimation of relational adjustment, prevalence of victimization, and characteristics of identified victims. Psychological Assessment, 14, 74-96.

Limber, S.  (2004).  Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in American schools: Lessons learned from the field. In D. Espelage & S. Swearer (Eds.), Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention (pp. 351-363). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P.  (2001).  Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 28, 2094-2100.

Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J.  (2005).  Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435-450.

Nishina, A., Juvonen, J., & Witkow, M.  (2005).  Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will make me sick: The consequences of peer harassment. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 37-48.

National School Safety Center. Review of School Safety Research. Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCES, January 2006.

O’Connell, P., Pepler, D. and Craig, W.  (1999).  Peer involvement in bullying: Insights and challenges for intervention. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 437 – 452.

Olweus, D.  (1993).  Bullying at school. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Olweus, D.  (1994).  Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 35, 1171–1190.

Payne, A. A., & Gottfredson, D. C.  (2004).  Schools and bullying: Factors related to bullying and school-based bullying interventions. In C. Sanders & G. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 159-176). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pellegrini, A.  (2004).  Bullying during the middle school years. In C. Sanders & G. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 177-202). San Diego, CA.: Academic Press.

Rigby, K.  (1999).  Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Melbourne, Australia: ACER.

Rodkin, P., Farmer, T., Pearl, R., & Van Acker, R.  (2000).  Heterogeneity of popular boys: Antisocial and prosocial configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36, 14-24.

Salmivalli, C.  (2001).  Group view on victimization: Empirical findings and their implications. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 398-419). New York: Guilford Press.

Samples, F.  (2004).  Evaluating curriculum-based intervention programs: An examination of preschool, primary, and elementary school intervention programs. In C. Sanders & G. Phye (Eds.), Bullying: Implications for the classroom (pp. 203-228). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sanders, C., & Phye, G.  (2004).  Bullying: Implications for the classroom. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & Coie, J. D.  (1993).  The emergence of chronic peer vicitimization in boys' play groups. Child Development, 64, 1755-1772.

Schwartz, D., Proctor, L. J., & Chien, D. H.  (2001).  The aggressive victim of bullying: Emotional and behavioral dysregulation as a pathway to victimization by peers. In J. Juvonen & S. Graham (Eds.), Peer harassment in school: The plight of the vulnerable and victimized (pp. 147 – 174). New York: Guilford Press.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A., Nakamoto, J., & Tobin, R.  (2005).  Victimization in the peer group and children’s academic functioning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 425- 435.

Smith, P., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K.  (2004).  Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? New York: Cambridge University Press.

Unnever, J.  (2005).  Bullies, aggressive victims, and victims: Are they distinct groups?, Aggressive Behavior, 31, 153-171. 

Zariski, A., & Coie, J.  (1996).  A comparison of aggressive-rejected and non-aggressive ¬rejected children’s interpretations of self-directed and other-directed rejection. Child Development, 67, 1048-1070.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M., Geiger, T., & Crick, N.  (2005).  Relational and physical aggression, prosocial behavior, and peer relations: Gender moderation and bidirectional associations. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 421-452