Bullyinessay3

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 1

SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention

Victoria Stuart-Cassel, Mary Terzian, and Catherine Bradshaw

May 2013

In Brief

Bullying is considered one of the most prevalent and potentially damaging forms of school violence

(Elinoff, Chafouleas, & Sassu, 2004). Each year, more than a quarter of middle and high school students

are subjected to some form of bullying in their school environments (Neiman, 2011). Research has

identified potentially harmful immediate and long-term consequences for bullying-involved youth and has

linked bullying to the quality of school environments and to unsafe conditions for learning in schools

(Copeland, Wolke, Angold, & Costello, 2013; DeVoe & Kaffenberger, 2005).

This In Brief focuses on social bullying, a form of emotionally aggressive bullying behavior. The brief

includes discussion of how social bullying is defined, what distinguishes it from other types of aggression,

how commonly it occurs in schools, and what factors contribute to social bullying involvement. The brief

summarizes research findings concerning the impacts of social bullying on individual social development

and adjustment and identifies implications for school learning environments. The last section describes

school-based approaches for preventing and reducing social bullying.

What Is Social Bullying? Bullying is generally defined as a form of unwanted, aggressive behavior among school-age children that

involves a real or perceived power imbalance and that is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated,

over time (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in press; http://www.stopbullying.gov).There are three

broad forms of bullying, including physical, verbal, and social bullying.

Research and school-based prevention practices have generally focused on the more visible and widely

recognized forms of physical and verbal bullying. However, as public understanding of youth bullying

behavior continues to evolve, definitions have been expanded to recognize social bullying as an

important form of youth aggression.

Relational aggression, indirect aggression, and

social aggression are terms used to describe

different dimensions of social bullying. Although

the terms convey subtle differences in meaning,

they describe a set of closely related, often

overlapping behaviors that share the effect of

undermining social status and threatening

feelings of support, security, and closeness in

youth relationships.

Social bullying can occur within the context of

large social groups as well as within small social networks, close friendships, or romantic relationships.

It can involve direct social interactions or confrontations between a student who bullies and a student

who is targeted as well as indirect acts that engage other members of the social group or network in

the bullying interaction (see Exhibit 1).

Social bullying, sometimes referred to as relational

bullying, involves hurting someone’s reputation or

relationships. Social bullying includes:

¡ Leaving someone out on purpose

¡ Telling other children not to be friends with someone

¡ Spreading rumors about someone

¡ Embarassing someone in public

(http://www.stopbullying.gov)

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 2

Social bullying can be proactive, or used to achieve or maintain social position, gain attention, or

alleviate boredom, or it can be reactive, or retaliatory, in nature, in response to a perceived threat

or to feelings of anger, jealousy, or betrayal (Young, Boye, & Nelson, 2006). Understanding the range

of social bullying behaviors and the different contexts that motivate students’ actions can help

to appropriately identify social bullying incidents and can inform strategies for how to effectively

intervene (http://www.stopbullying.gov).

Exhibit 1. Examples of Direct and Indirect Forms of Social Bullying

Cyberbullying With growing access to technology, acts of social bullying are increasingly likely to take the form of

electronic aggression, often referred to as cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is defined as bullying using

electronic devices, such as cell phones, computers, and tablets, or other communication tools, including

social media sites, text messages, chat rooms, and websites (http://www.stopbullying.gov).

Cyberbullying can be extremely damaging to targeted students because of the opportunity for hurtful

content to be broadcast to large audiences. Furthermore, the physical and emotional distance between

youth who bully online and youth who are targeted can make cyberbullying attacks more malicious in

nature (Smith et al., 2008). Although most incidents of cyberbullying occur off school grounds and

during nonschool hours, schools are increasingly called upon to respond within the limitations of their

school policies, particularly when the effects of cyberbullying disrupt the learning environment.

How Common Is Social Bullying? According to the U.S. Department of Education’s national survey of student safety in secondary schools,

16 percent of all students reported being the subject of rumors, and 5 percent reported being excluded

from activities on purpose within the past school year. Approximately 4 percent of students reported being

the targets of cyberbullying, including acts intended to damage social relationships or status. Specifically,

2 percent reported that hurtful information had been posted about them online, and 9 percent reported

that they had been deliberately excluded from online activities (Nieman, 2011).

Leaving someone out on purpose

¡ Direct verbal: Telling other children that they are not wanted in the group

¡ Indirect verbal: Telling other children to exclude a particular person from games or other group activities

¡ Indirect nonverbal: Walking away or ignoring particular children when they attempt to join the group

Telling other children not to be friends with someone

¡ Indirect: Telling other children that you do not understand why they are friends with a particular person

¡ Direct: Telling other children that you or your friends do not want to be friends with them anymore

Spreading rumors about someone

¡ Indirect: Telling others negative things about a particular person in order to damage or sabotage that person’s close

relationships or social reputation (e.g., writing rumors or insults about someone on a bathroom wall or spray painting an

insult or slur on someone’s locker)

Embarrassing someone in public

¡ Direct: Embarrassing or insulting other children over the Internet or making embarrassing comments about others when

they attempt to approach the group

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 3

The national survey also indicated differences in prevalence of social bullying across gender groups and

grade levels. Females reported higher rates of social bullying victimization than male students, with 20

percent of females experiencing exclusion by peers, compared with 13 percent of males. Similarly, 6

percent of female students reported being the subjects of rumor spreading, compared with 4 percent of

males. Across grade levels, sixth-grade students reported the highest prevalence of bullying of any form

(39 percent) as well as the highest rates of social bullying victimization—21 percent of all sixth-grade

students reported being the subject of rumors, compared with 17 percent of ninth-grade students and

13 percent of 12th-grade students (Nieman, 2011).

Other large-scale surveys of students in Grades 3–8 reveal even higher rates of social bullying

victimization among upper elementary and middle school-age youth. Specifically, between 41–48

percent of girls and 31–42 percent of boys reported being the targets of social bullying within a

30-day period. Even more striking, 20–28 percent of girls and 20–24 percent of boys reported

engaging in socially aggressive behavior themselves, most commonly by ignoring someone on

purpose (Nishioka, Coe, Burke, Hanita, & Sprague, 2011).

These data indicate that social bullying is relatively common across many school settings. However,

because social bullying is often subtle, indirect, and not easily observed, school personnel may be

unaware of when it occurs or may have difficulty determining the source of the conflict (Bradshaw,

Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007; Elinoff et al., 2004). School personnel may also fail to acknowledge and

respond to incidents of social bullying because adults often view these hurtful social interactions as

a normal part of childhood. Students may also be less willing to report social bullying than other forms

of bullying behavior and may perceive that certain types of social bullying, such as social exclusion,

should be handled without adult involvement (Goldstein & Tisak, 2006; Waasdorp & Bradshaw, 2011).

What Contributes to Social Bullying Involvement? Several factors can heighten or reduce youth risks for social bullying or social aggression, including

individual-, family-, peer-, and school-related influences.

Factors Related to Victimization Although any child can become a target of social bullying, children who are at heightened risk are

often those who are perceived to visibly differ from conventional social norms. This includes youth

with developmental disabilities or social skills deficits, youth who are underweight or overweight, and

youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) (Fox & Boulton, 2005; Kosciw,

Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2011; Rose, Espelage, & Monda-Amaya, 2009; Wang, Iannotti, & Luk,

2010; Zablotsky, Bradshaw, Anderson, & Law, 2012). Exhibit 2 highlights the social bullying

experiences of LGBT youth who are at risk for being the target of bullying (Kosciw et al., 2011).

Exhibit 2. Social Bullying and LGBT Youth

Recent national school climate surveys capturing the school experiences of students who identify as LGBT found high rates

of bullying exposure for all forms of bullying behavior, including social bullying. LGBT respondents 13–20 years of age were

asked how often they experienced two common forms of relational aggression: being purposefully excluded by peers and

being the target of mean rumors or lies. Nearly half of all youth surveyed (49 percent) experienced deliberate exclusion by

their peers “frequently” or “often” throughout the course of the school year, and 40 percent were “frequently” or “often” the

target of mean rumors or lies (Kosciw et al., 2011).

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 4

Although further research is needed to fully understand the complex factors contributing to social

bullying, the available research suggests that certain factors may put youth at risk for being targeted.

For example, compared to their peers, targets of social bullying tend more often to be disliked by their

peers, have fewer friends, have stronger needs for intimacy, and, within their friendships, report higher

levels of conflict and betrayal (Crick et al., 1999; Grotpeter & Crick, 1996).

Factors Related to Perpetration Several of the factors associated with perpetrating social bullying overlap with those linked to physical

and verbal forms of bullying (Brendgen, 2012). For example, an irritable temperament, difficulty managing

strong emotions, and a tendency to attribute hostile intent are associated with reactive forms of bullying

of any type (Crick, Grotpeter, & Bigbee, 2002). In addition, environmental factors, such as low levels of

perceived family support and exposure to domestic and community violence, have been linked with all

forms of bullying behavior (Pepler, Jiang, Craig, & Connolly, 2008; Woods & Wolke 2004).

Although a common perception is that social bullying is predominantly a “girl” issue, research suggests

that males engage in social bullying more often than previously thought (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little

2008). Still, studies have shown that girls are more likely to engage in social bullying than other more

physical forms of aggression and are more likely to be the targets of social bullying (Crick, Ostrov, &

Kawabata, 2007).

From a developmental perspective, early adolescence and the transition to middle school represent

a period of heightened risk for involvement in most forms of bullying. Yet, some studies have shown

that social bullying behavior is generally stable (Cillessen & Mayeux, 2004), suggesting that without

intervention, youth will continue to engage in socially aggressive behaviors over time. Exhibit 3 summarizes

differences in social bullying by age, compared with age trends for physical/verbal bullying, and

highlights other factors associated with social bullying across child, peer, family, and school domains.

Exhibit 3. Factors Associated With Social Bullying

Child Factors Age Studies suggest that physical aggression is most common in childhood, and social aggression is

most common in adolescence. However, bullying behaviors tend to peak in early adolescence, when

youth begin to rely more on peers and romantic partners for social support. During adolescence,

youth also seek to gain acceptance from peers, advance their social status, form small peer groups

known as “cliques,” vie for social power within these groups, and secure individual friendships and

romantic relationships (Yoon, Barton, & Taiariol, 2004).

Personal Attitudes

Research suggests that children who evaluate socially aggressive behaviors favorably are more likely

to exhibit these behaviors than children who disapprove of such behaviors (Werner & Nixon, 2005).

In addition, children who tend to detach themselves from moral obligations (e.g., by blaming others

or justifying inhumane behavior) are more likely to exhibit these behaviors than those who do not

(Pepler et al., 2008).

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 5

Peer Factors Peer Attitudes and Behaviors Just as having antisocial peers can increase the risk for aggressive and delinquent behaviors,

having socially aggressive peers or belonging to a peer group that tolerates and reinforces socially

aggressive behaviors (by ignoring or laughing in response to these behaviors) can increase the risk

for social bullying (Heilbron & Prinstein, 2008; Rodkin, 2011).

Family Factors Parenting Style Parenting styles characterized by psychological control and lack of nurturing have also been

examined as possible links to the development of social bullying (Kawabata, Alink, Tseng, van

Ijzendoorn, & Crick, 2011; Pernice-Duca, Taiariol, & Yoon 2010). Parents may exert psychological

control by relying heavily on the use of guilt, engaging in personal attacks, threatening to withdraw

love or support, invalidating feelings, and constraining verbal expressions (Barber, 1996). Parents

may display a lack of nurturing by offering low levels of emotional support and relying too heavily

on coercive disciplinary methods (Hart, Nelson, Robinson, Olsen, & McNeilly-Choque, 1998;

Maccoby & Martin, 1983).

Parental Role Modeling

Children whose parents use relational manipulation as a tactic for gaining attention or affection

or as a strategy for asserting power and children whose parents model socially aggressive behaviors

with family or with friends are particularly vulnerable to social bullying (Brendgen, 2012).

School Factors School Climate Just as social bullying may negatively affect school climate, a positive school climate, or a climate

characterized in part by a sense of social-emotional safety and positive relationships, is likely to

discourage social bullying (Cohen, 2009).

Why Is Social Bullying Important? Given the prevalence of social bullying, it is likely that most youth will have some exposure to this type

of socially aggressive behavior (Crick, Casas, & Nelson, 2002). Although not all exposure to bullying will

result in harmful effects, children who are frequent targets of social bullying can suffer more serious and

long-term consequences, impacting their social-emotional health and adjustment (Copeland et al., 2013).

Similarly, youth who engage in social bullying and aggression are also likely to experience adjustment

issues and other consequences related to their behavior. These risks appear greatest among those

involved as both a target and a perpetrator (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Sawyer, 2009).

Consequences for Students Who Are Bullied Children generally consider social bullying to be mean and harmful (Crick, Bigbee, & Howes, 1996).

Research has demonstrated a relationship between social bullying victimization and a range of negative

consequences for youth, including peer rejection, externalizing problems, depressive symptoms, and

loneliness (Crick & Nelson, 2002; Ostrov, Woods, Jansen, Casas, & Crick, 2004). Studies examining

gender differences in direct and indirect aggression suggest that girls may be impacted more adversely

than boys by socially aggressive interactions because they place more value on social relationships

(Speiker et al., 2012). Accordingly, girls who encounter social bullying within close friendships may

experience heightened levels of social anxiety, social avoidance, loneliness, feelings of distress, and

behavioral problems (Crick & Nelson, 2002). Although research on the longer term consequences of

social bullying is not well established, studies have linked reports of frequent adolescent exposure to

social bullying with feelings of depression and anxiety in young adulthood (Dempsey & Storch, 2008).

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 6

Consequences for Students Who Bully Research on social bullying has linked the use of aggression to a range of adverse consequences,

including peer rejection, conduct problems, and internalizing behaviors (Card et al., 2008). However,

social bullying can also be used as an adaptive strategy to obtain social prominence and perceived

popularity (Pellegrini & Long, 2002). But even though socially aggressive youth are often perceived to

be more popular than their peers, social status is not necessarily related to strong, quality friendships.

Specifically, research suggests that close friendships among children who engage in social bullying are

often characterized by increased conflict and jealousy and can result in feelings of loneliness (Grotpeter

& Crick, 1996).

Impacts on the Learning Environment Social bullying can also have negative consequences for the larger school environment when bullying

behavior detracts from teaching and learning and negatively impacts school climate. Notably, a recent

national survey found that more than half of all teachers (53 percent) in the study and one third of

educational support professionals (e.g., paraprofessionals) perceived social or relational forms of bullying

to be a moderate or major problem in their schools and rated it as an even greater concern than either

physical forms of bullying or cyberbullying (Bradshaw, Waasdorp, O’Brennan, & Gulemetova, in press).

Research shows that when students are exposed to high levels of social bullying, either as a target or

as a witness to the behavior, they are more likely to perceive their schools as less safe. Youth who were

frequently subjected to social bullying also held negative feelings about their own social experiences and

the social climate in their schools (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008). Other studies have found that social

bullying in the form of chronic exclusion impacts children’s classroom participation and causes students

to become increasingly disengaged from classroom activities as they progress through school (Buhs,

Ladd, & Herald, 2006).

What Can Be Done to Prevent Social Bullying? Effective school-based bullying prevention involves a social-ecological, whole-school approach that engages

students, families, and all school staff in prevention efforts and establishes consistent expectations

for positive behavior across all school contexts. (Espelage & Swearer, 2004; Ross & Horner, 2009).

Researchers generally agree that preventing bullying in schools requires the application of a wide range

of evidence-based approaches. These approaches include (a) adopting clear antibullying policies, (b)

implementing a multitiered approach that involves students of all levels of risk, (c) providing adequate

adult supervision during unstructured time, (d) training teachers to respond to bullying incidents

effectively, (e) promoting effective classroom management, (f) using positive behavior support systems,

(g) providing supports to students who have been bullied, (h) collecting data to monitor bullying and

increase accountability, (i) involving families and communities, and (j) integrating and sustaining

prevention efforts. These evidence-based approaches are discussed in greater detail below.

Adopt School Policies That Recognize and Prohibit Social Bullying Clear antibullying policies are essential elements of a successful schoolwide prevention effort (Olweus,

1993). Most school districts have established local policies to prevent or reduce bullying, often in

response to expectations in state legislation. (See Exhibit 4 for more information on social bullying and

state bullying laws.) However, for schools to appropriately identify and respond to incidents of social

bullying, school policies must recognize social bullying as a form of aggression and must contain clear

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 7

prohibitions against these behaviors. Advocates have also argued that school policies should clearly

communicate a lack of tolerance for bullying due to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender

identity, and gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2011).

Exhibit 4. Social Bullying and State Bullying Laws

Train School Personnel to Respond to Social Bullying Incidents Effectively School policies should communicate clear roles and expectations for school personnel to respond to

incidents of school bullying. However, national surveys suggest that while the majority of teachers and

other school personnel are aware of their school bullying policies, less than half had received formal

training on policy guidelines (Bradshaw et al., in press). For school personnel to respond effectively and

consistently to social bullying behaviors, they need clear guidance, support, and practice on how to

identify social bullying interactions, how to immediately intervene to resolve bullying situations, and how

to provide appropriate follow-up and support to bullying-involved youth (National Education Association,

n.d.). Resources on bullying prevention, including strategies for how to support and intervene with

students, are available from the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE)

(http://safesupportiveschools.ed.gov/index.php?id=01).

Implement Whole-School, Multitiered Prevention Approaches Application of whole-school strategies based on a three-tiered public health model is a comprehensive,

evidence-based approach to the prevention of bullying and other emotional and behavioral problems

(Bradshaw et al., in press; Mrazek & Haggerty, 1994; O’Connell, Boat, & Warner, 2009; Walker et al.,

1996). This model includes a universal system of support, or a set of activities that affect all students

within a defined community or school setting. Layered onto that first tier of support are selected

interventions that target a subgroup of students who are at risk—for example, those who are close

friends with students who bully other students. A tiered approach might include lessons on social-

emotional skill development for all students, thus making it a universal program. In fact, research

highlights the importance of providing class time to discuss bullying (Olweus, 1993) and the use of

lessons to foster social-emotional skills and competencies, effective communication, and strategies for

responding to bullying (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009); such strategies can also have a positive impact on

academic and other behavioral outcomes (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).

At the second tier, selective interventions may include social skills training for small groups of children at

risk for becoming involved in bullying. Finally, an indicated preventive intervention (third tier) may include

more intensive supports and programs for students identified as bullies or victims and their families

Policy studies analyzing the content of state antibullying legislation have focused on the extent to which legal definitions

of prohibited behavior are inclusive of acts of social or relational aggression. A recent review of legislation in 49 states and

the District of Columbia (U.S. Department of Education, 2011) found that only four state laws contain explicit references

to social bullying behaviors (e.g., social exclusion or rumor spreading) in their legal definitions of school bullying and that

29 others define bullying in a way that could encompass social bullying behaviors. This study also found that state bullying

laws and policies tended to place more emphasis on and were more explicit about disciplinary consequences for bullying

than for preventive programs and policies. Although many states require local school systems to adopt definitions of bullying

that conform to minimum state definitions, almost all allow districts to expand upon the definitions to broaden the scope of

behavior covered in local policies.

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 8

(Espelage & Swearer, 2008; Ross & Horner, 2009). Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports

(Sugai & Horner, 2009) is one such tiered prevention model that is commonly used in schools and has

been shown to be effective at reducing bullying and other aggressive behavior problems (Bradshaw,

Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012; Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2012).

Provide Adequate Adult Supervision During Unstructured Time Studies have suggested that increases in bullying prevalence in the transition to middle school may be

related to reductions in adult supervision (Espelage, 2002). Effective supervision, especially in bullying

“hot spots” such as playgrounds, buses, and cafeterias, represents an important component of effective

school approaches. Unstructured time is a particularly important context for increased supervision

(Farrington & Ttofi, 2009; Frey et al., 2005).

Use Professional Development and Policy to Promote Effective Classroom Management Effective classroom management is also critical because well-managed classrooms are rated as having

a more favorable climate, being safer and more supportive, and having lower rates of bullying (Koth,

Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008). Such preventive approaches provide clear and consistent expectations for

behavior in the classroom, which can also be extended schoolwide. Several classroom management

models, such as the Good Behavior Game, have proved to be effective at addressing a wide range of

behavioral problems and mental health concerns and improving academic performance in both the

short and long term (Bradshaw, Zmuda, Kellam, & Ialongo, 2009).

Introduce Positive Behavioral Interventions as an Alternative to Punitive Disciplinary Approaches There is a general consensus in the literature that zero-tolerance policies that result in automatic

suspensions are not effective at stemming bullying or addressing its consequences (American

Psychological Association, 2008). Ensuring the safety of the targeted student should remain the top

priority. However, aside from extreme situations in which the targeted student’s safety cannot be ensured,

school personnel are strongly encouraged to implement a continuum of positive behavioral supports as

an alternative to exclusionary disciplinary approaches such as suspension (Bradshaw, in press).

Provide Supports to Students Who Have Been Bullied Children who have been bullied require a systematic assessment of the potential mental health and

social effects of the bullying. It is also important to reassure children who have been the targets of

bullying that the behavior will not be tolerated by the school, that the bullying behavior is not deserved,

and that adults will work to ensure their safety. Supports should be provided to promote effective coping

and to prevent the development of behavioral or mental health concerns. In some instances, a referral to

community-based mental health services may be needed; however, school-based clinical staff (e.g., school

psychologists) may also be well positioned to provide supports to students who are targets of bullying

(Bradshaw, in press).

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 9

Use Data to Support Monitoring and Accountability Monitoring the prevalence of bullying among students at school and off school grounds is another useful

strategy. Collecting data on bullying through anonymous student surveys can inform the supervision and

intervention process (Health Resources and Services Administration, n.d.). For example, school climate

surveys are a central needs assessment, monitoring, and planning tool for many whole-school

interventions. These data can identify potential areas for intensive training for school staff, which is an

essential element of successful bullying prevention efforts (Farrington & Ttofi, 2009). Data on bullying

and school climate more broadly are also important for monitoring progress toward the goal of reducing

bullying (Bradshaw, in press; Olweus, 1993).

Involve Families and Communities Families play a critical role in bullying prevention by providing emotional support to promote disclosure

of bullying incidents and by fostering coping skills in their children. Parents need training in how to talk

with their children about bullying (Lindstrom Johnson, Finigan, Bradshaw, Haynie, & Cheng, in press),

how to communicate their concerns about bullying to the school, and how to get actively involved in

school-based bullying prevention efforts (Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Duong, 2011). There also are important

bullying prevention activities that can occur at the community level, such as awareness or social marketing

campaigns that encourage all youth and adults—such as doctors, police officers, and storekeepers—to

intervene when they see bullying and to become actively involved in school- and community-based

prevention activities (Health Resources and Services Administration, n.d.; Olweus, 1993).

Integrate and Sustain Prevention Efforts It is essential that schools integrate prevention efforts with their other existing programs and

supports. Research by Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2001) indicates that, on average, schools are

using about 14 different strategies or programs to prevent violence and promote a safe learning

environment. This can often be overwhelming for school staff to execute well, thereby leading to poor

implementation fidelity. Therefore, schools are encouraged to integrate their prevention efforts so

that there is a seamless system of support (Domitrovich et al., 2010) that is coordinated, monitored

for high-fidelity implementation, and includes all staff across all school contexts. Instead of adopting

a different program to combat each new problem that emerges, it is recommended that schools

develop a consistent and long-term prevention plan that addresses multiple student concerns through

a set of well-integrated programs and services (Health Resources and Services Administration, n.d.).

Such efforts would address multiple competencies and skills in order to prevent bullying and help

students cope and respond appropriately when bullying occurs. The three-tiered public health model

provides a framework for connecting bullying prevention with other programs to address bullying

within the broader set of behavioral and academic concerns.

Conclusion This In Brief highlights social bullying, a relatively undetected and unaddressed form of school bullying

behavior. Research and practice show that social bullying is relatively common, is distinct from physical

and verbal forms of bullying, is more easily concealed, is less frequently reported, is more often

overlooked by adults, and has harmful effects on both bullying and bullied youth. Understanding the

factors associated with social bullying, including knowledge of correlates and causes of bullying, will

contribute to its proper prevention, detection, and amelioration. The relatively unobtrusive and often

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 10

group-based behaviors that characterize social bullying make it more difficult to identify and address

through conventional disciplinary means. Research has shown that whole-school, preventive

approaches, such as those outlined here, are critical to address social bullying effectively. Increasing

awareness of social bullying and its pervasiveness, its associated harms, and its prevention are

important contributions to creating safe and supportive learning environments for our nation’s youth.

References American Psychological Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review

and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. Washington, DC: Author.

Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a neglected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296–3319.

Bradshaw, C. P. (in press). Preventing bullying through Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): A multi-tiered approach to prevention and integration. Theory Into Practice.

Bradshaw, C. P., Sawyer, A. L., & O’Brennan, L. M. (2007). Bullying and peer victimization at school: Perceptual differences between students and school staff. School Psychology Review, 36, 361–382.

Bradshaw, C. P., & Waasdorp, T. E. (2009). Measuring and changing a “culture of bullying.” School Psychology Review, 38, 356–361.

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5), e1136–e1145.

Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., O’Brennan, L., & Gulemetova, M. (in press). Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspectives on bullying and prevention: Findings from a National Education Association (NEA) survey. School Psychology Review.

Bradshaw, C. P., Zmuda, J. H., Kellam, S. G., & Ialongo, N. S. (2009). Longitudinal impact of two universal preventive interventions in first grade on educational outcomes in high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 926–937.

Brendgen, M. (2012). Development of indirect aggression before school entry. In R. E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R. DeV. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/BrendgenANGxp1.pdf

Buhs, E., Ladd, G., & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 1–13.

Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79(5), 1185–1229.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (in press). Bullying surveillance among school-age children: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163.

Cohen, J. (2009). Transforming school climate: Educational and psychoanalytic perspectives: Introduction. Schools: Studies in Education, 6(1), 99–103.

Copeland, W. E., Wolke, D., Angold, A., & Costello, J. (2013). Adult psychiatric outcomes of bullying and being bullied by peers in childhood and adolescence. JAMA Psychiatry, 70(4), 419–426.

Crick, N. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howes, C. (1996). Gender differences in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003–1014.

Crick, N. R., Casas, J. F., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Toward a more comprehensive understanding of peer maltreatment: Studies of relational victimization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 98–101.

Crick, N. R., Grotpeter, J. K., & Bigbee, M. A. (2002). Relationally and physically aggressive children’s intent attributions and feelings of distress for relational and instrumental peer provocations. Child Development, 73(4), 1134–1142.

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 11

Crick, N. R., & Nelson, D. A. (2002). Relational and physical victimization within friendships: Nobody told me there’d be friends like these. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 599–607.

Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., & Kawabata, Y. (2007). Relational aggression and gender: An overview. In D. J. Flannery & A. Vazsonyi (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 243–260). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Crick, N. R., Werner, N. E., Casas, J. F., O’Brien, K. M., Nelson, D. A., Grotpeter, J. K., et al. (1999). Childhood aggression and gender: A new look at an old problem. In D. Bernstein (Ed.), The Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 45. Gender and motivation (pp. 75–141). Omaha, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Dempsey, A. G., & Storch, E. A. (2008). Relational victimization: The association between recalled adolescent social experiences and emotional adjustment in early adulthood. Psychology in the Schools, 45(4), 310–322.

DeVoe, J. F., & Kaffenberger, S. (2005). Student reports of bullying: Results from the 2001 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey—Statistical analysis report (NCES 2005-310). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Greenberg, M. T., Embry, D., Poduska, J., & Ialongo, N. S. (2010). Integrated models of school-based prevention: Theory and logic. Psychology in the Schools, 47(1), 71–88.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.

Elinoff, M. J., Chafouleas, S. M., & Sassu, K. A. (2004). Bullying: Considerations for defining and intervening in school settings. Psychology in the Schools, 41(8), 887–897.

Espelage, D. L. (2002). Bullying in early adolescence: The role of the peer group. ERIC Digest. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED471912)

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in American schools: A social-ecological perspective on prevention and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2008). Current perspectives on linking school bullying research to effective prevention strategies. In T. W. Miller (Ed.), School violence and primary prevention (pp. 335–353). New York: Springer.

Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2009). How to reduce school bullying. Victims and Offenders, 4(4), 321–326.

Fox, C. L., & Boulton, M. J. (2005). The social skills problems of victims of bullying: Self, peer and teacher perceptions. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 313–328.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V. S., 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(3), 479.

Goldstein, S. E., & Tisak, M. S. (2006). Early adolescents’ conceptions of parental and friend authority over relational aggression. Journal of Early Adolescence, 26(2), 344–364.

Goldstein, S., Young, A., & Boyd, C. (2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 6, 641–654.

Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What schools do to prevent delinquency and promote safe environments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(3), 313–344.

Grotpeter J. K., & Crick, N. R. (1996). Relational aggression, overt aggression, and friendship. Child Development, 67, 2328–2338.

Hart, C. H., Nelson, D. A., Robinson, C. C., Olsen, S., & McNeilly-Choque, M. K. (1998). Overt and relational aggression in Russian nursery-school-age children: Parenting style and marital linkages. Developmental Psychology, 34, 687–697.

Health Resources and Services Administration. (n.d.). Best practices in bullying prevention and intervention. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/reference/article/Ref_Best_Practices/

Heilbron, N., & Prinstein, M. J. (2008). A review and reconceptualization of social aggression: Adaptive and maladaptive correlates. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11(4), 176–217.

Johnson, S. L. (2009). Improving the school environment to reduce school violence: A review of the literature. Journal of School Health, 79(10), 451–465.

In Brief SOCIAL BULLYING: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention Page 12

Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W. L., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: A conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Developmental Review, 31(4), 240–278.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96.

Lindstrom Johnson, S., Finigan, N., Bradshaw, C. P., Haynie, D., & Cheng, T. (in press). Urban parents’ messages about violence: A mixed methods study of African American youth and their parents’ conversations about how to resolve interpersonal conflict. Journal of Adolescent Research.

Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. Handbook of Child Psychology, 4, 1–101.

Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. J. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press.

National Education Association. (n.d.). How to intervene in a bullying incident. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/ home/53358.htm

Neiman, S. (2011). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime and Safety: 2009–10 (NCES 2011-320). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Nishioka, V., Coe, M., Burke, A., Hanita, M., & Sprague, J. (2011). Student-reported overt and relational aggression and victimization in Grades 3–8 (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2011–No. 114). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/ pdf/REL_2011114_sum.pdf

O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Sawyer, A. L. (2009). Examining developmental differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 100–115.

O’Connell, M. E., Boat, T. F., & Warner, K. E. (Eds.). (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K. E., Jansen, E. A., Casas, J. F., & Crick, N. R. (2004). An observational study of delivered and received aggression and social psychological adjustment in preschool: “This white crayon doesn’t work.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 355–371.

Pellegrini, A. D., & Long, J. D. (2002). A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 259–280.

Pepler, D., Jiang, D., Craig, W., & Connolly, J. (2008). Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79(2), 325–338.

Pernice-Duca, F., Taiariol, J., & Yoon, J. (2010). Perceptions of school and family climates and experiences of relational aggression. Journal of School Violence, 9(3), 303–319.

Rodkin, P. C. (2011). Bullying—And the power of peers. Educational Leadership, 69(1), 10–16.

Rose, C. A., Espelage, D. L., & Monda‐Amaya, L. E. (2009). Bullying and victimisation rates among students in general and special education: A comparative analysis. Educational Psychology, 29(7), 761–776.

Ross, S. W., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 747.

Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.

Spieker, S. J., Campbell, S. B., Vandergrift, N., Pierce, K. M., Cauffman, E., Susman, et al. (2012). Relational aggression in middle childhood: Predictors and adolescent outcomes. Social Development 21(2), 354–375.

1315_05/2013

1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW Washington, DC 20007-3835 202.403.5000 | TTY: 877.334.3499

www.air.org

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223–237.

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(1), 27–56.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Analysis of state bullying laws and policies. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: Author.

Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011). Examining student responses to frequent bullying: A latent class approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 336–352.

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Duong, J. (2011). The link between parents’ perceptions of the school and their responses to school bullying: Variation by child characteristics and the forms of victimization. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(2), 324.

Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). The impact of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 116(2), 149–156.

Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4(4), 194–209.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Luk, J. W. (2010). Bullying victimization among underweight and overweight U.S. youth: Differential associations for boys and girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47(1), 99–101.

Werner, N. E., & Nixon, C. L. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(3), 229–243.

Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2004). Direct and relational bullying among primary school children and academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 42(2), 135–155.

Yoon, J. S., Barton, E., & Taiariol, J. (2004). Relational aggression in middle school: Educational implications of developmental research. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 24(3), 303–318.

Young, E., Boye, A., & Nelson, D. (2006) Relational aggression: Understanding, identifying, and responding in schools. Psychology in the Schools, 43(3), 297–312.

Zablotsky, B., Bradshaw, C. P., Anderson, C., & Law, P. (2012). Bullying among children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: Parents’ perspectives on the influence of school factors. Behavioral Disorders, 37(3), 179–191.

Social Bullying: Correlates, Consequences, and Prevention is a product of the National Center on Safe

Supportive Learning Environments, under funding provided by the U.S. Department of Education, Office

of Safe and Healthy Students (OSHS), Contract Number ED-OSD-10-O-0093. The contents of this brief

do not necessarily represent the policy or views of the U.S. Department of Education, nor do they imply

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education. The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning

Environments is operated by American Institutes for Research (AIR) in collaboration with Child Trends;

Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL); EMT Associates; Silver Gate

Group; and Vision Training Associates, Inc. (VTA).